Mr. KRAMER (interposing). You think there are more what there? Mr. CELLER. More theaters.

Mr. KRAMER. Have you ever been to California, to Los Angeles? Mr. CELLER. I have been there.

Mr. KRAMER. Have you ever counted the theaters in Los Angeles? Mr. CELLER. I have not counted them; no.

Mr. KRAMER. I am talking about theaters, now. [Laughter.] Mr. CELLER. You mean motion-picture theaters, or do you mean spoken drama?

Mr. KRAMER. Both movie and legitimate theaters.

Mr. CELLER. It may be that Los Angeles has a greater number. But I will say this, that most of the American drama originates in New York City. Let us take that for the starting piont. But with reference to the question propounded by the gentleman from Texas, I am quite well aware that this bill does not keep out, or place any kind of embargo upon, actors and actresses who are celebrated or who have become eminent in their profession.

Mr. DIES. No; "distinguished." Stick by the wording of the bill. Mr. CELLER. I do not see much distinction between "distinguished" and "celebrated."

Mr. DIES. Oh, yes; a man can be a distinguished man and not be celebrated.

Mr. CELLER. Well, he cannot be distinguished unless the people know him as such, and therefore he is celebrated if he is distinguished. However, I am not going to quibble over that. I will say that there are in this particular production I mentioned, actors who are not distinguished. Just as in a play, for example, produced last year, called "The Autumn Crocus

Mr. KRAMER (interposing). Produced in New York?

Mr. CELLER. Yes.

Mr. KRAMER. This one was not distinguished?

Mr. CELLER. I did not say a play was not distinguished. I wish the gentleman would listen carefully. I say in this particular production there were actors who were not known and not distinguished. There are some who are distinguished.

Mr. KRAMER. And those who are not distinguished, why are they not distinguished?

Mr. CELLER. Because they have not perhaps received press notices and they have not yet been acclaimed, fame and distinction may come later. The American consul, for example, if this bill were enacted into law, would reject them and would not let them come to this country because they were not distinguished in his understanding of the word in the way that I understand "distinguished."

Mr. WEIDEMAN. Just on that point, many actors are celebrated on account of the press agents, but they have not distinguished merit or ability. Is not that so? They may get a reputation built up to make them celebrated, and they may not have any ability at all?

Mr. CELLER. It is possible.

Mr. DIES. I think Mr. Cellar has not got the proper idea of this bill.

Mr. CELLER. If you will let me finish my statement, I think you will see I have the right idea.

Mr. DIES. This does not say anything about celebration; it does. not say anything about press notices or anything like that. It merely

limits it to distinguished merit and ability, and in their case the Department has the right to issue exemptions, and the ones you are talking about would come in under a waiver.

Mr. CELLAR. No; not at all.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Just a minute, Mr. Dies. Let me supplement what you say, in this respect: Under this bill and the exceptions on page 2 it does not aim to keep out people of the class of Cyril Maude and Faversham, Julia Marlowe, E. H. Sothern, Mrs. Campbell, and all the rest, getting back to the premise of the gentleman from New York. If that is true, then precisely What does the American public lose by way of entertainment, esthetic instruction and inspiration, by keeping out the "hams" and the second-raters and letting the good people come in?

Mr. CELLAR. It is not a question of keeping out the "hams" and second raters.

Mr. DIRKSEN. That is the whole question in this bill.

Mr. CELLER. It is not a question of keeping out the "hams"; it is a question of keeping out actors who are persons of ability and merit but who have not achieved fame or become actors of "distinguished" merit and ability.

Mr. DIRKSEN. Then what do we lose by letting them be displaced by a lot of our actors and actresses who are out of work?

Mr. CELLER. I am trying to explain to you, if you will allow me and not interrupt so often.

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, I think Representative Celler should be permitted to make his stateemnt.

Mr. CELLER. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee. I have not been able to make an uninterrupted statement yet, and if the gentlemen will give me 5 minutes without interruption I may be able to get myself across to you.

The CHAIRMAN. I just wanted Mr. Celler to get the line of the questions so that he might answer them along. I think the questions are very proper. He is trying to develop some thoughts here.

Mr. CELLER. I do not say that the questions are improper at all. They are perfectly proper. The point I desire to make in opposition to the bill is that there are many actors who have not achieved fame, who have not become celebrated, who are not distinguished in merit and ability, who are nevertheless necessary for the American drama, necessary for producers and managers to get that type of actor to fill certain parts, and I tried to show in the case of the "Shining Hour" that there were a number of actors in that production who are British who cannot be spared. Yet they have not achieved fame, they would not come within this definition of "distinguished merit and ability" at all. Mr. DIES. It does not say "achieved fame."

Mr. CELLER. That is my interpretation of the language. You may differ with me. These actors have not shown distinguished merit and ability. I will put it that way. These actors have not become distinguished in merit and ability. They were just rising, just beginning, as it were on the threshold of their careers, getting the attention of those managers and producers who would bring them in to play those particular parts, and if those actors were taken out of that production it would destroy the symmetry of the production, would mar its perfection and would destroy it as a box-office success.

Now, take a play last year-here is where I was interrupted-"The Autumn Crocus", a play that ran a great many weeks, I think it ran 65 weeks in New York, if I am not mistaken, and was such a success that it toured the whole country. There was in that production an actor by the name of Francis Lederer. I believe he was a German or Austro-Hungarian. He was not an American. He would have been barred if this bill had been law. It was only the presence of Francis Lederer in that production that insured the success of that production, and I call on Mr. Lawrence Langner, who is an expert on these subjects, to tell me if that is true or not.

Mr. LANGNER (interposing). The success of "Autumn Crocus" was due to Francis Lederer, but it is not correct that he was not known abroad. However, there are plenty of other instances in which actors who were not known abroad and had no distinction abroad came over here and made an enormous success.

Mr. KRAMER. Is not that true also with respect to the movingpicture industry?

Mr. LANGNER. It is true also with respect to the moving-picture industry. Charlie Chaplin was entirely unknown in England, but he came over to this country and made a great success.

Mr. KRAMER. And built up one of the greatest moving-picture industries on the Pacific coast.

Mr. CELLER. Here is a list of names, only a few of them, of persons who came to this country, and who at entry were obscure. Mr. Weideman, I would just like to answer your question. Here is a list of persons absolutely obscure before they came to this country, who achieved fame after they came here, and became persons distinguished in merit and ability only after their entry. Listen to this distinguished array: Lionel Barrymore, George Arliss, Leslie Howard, Charlie Chaplin, Marie Dressler, H. B. Warner, Greta Garbo, Norma Shearer, Mary Pickford, Elissa Landi, Clive Brook, Herbert Marshall, Dennis King, Walter Huston, Ronald Colman, Victor McLaglenI could give you any number of them.

Mr. WEIDEMAN. Good Americans would have been developed into good actors for the same places.

Mr. CELLER. I would not say that at all. They encourage other Americans to become actors.

Mr. DIES. They did not come as actors, though. Charlie Chaplin was working for a circus, was he not? He did not come here as an actor.

Mr. CELLER. I do not know what he was. He was in the entertainment business.

Mr. DIES. They came over here to become citizens of the United States.

Mr. SCHULTE. And you say that Americans cannot be developed into Barrymores and Chaplins and all that?

Mr. CELLER. I did not say that. I do not wish that to be inferred. I wish only to say this: There are a great number of actors and actresses who came into this country, who achieved fame after they came here, developed after they came here; they would have been barred had this statute been in force at that time, at the time of their entry. They would have been absolutely embargoed from entry. They helped American drama and movies. We are the gainers for their coming.

Mr. WIEDEMAN. And they are keeping Americans from developing and being good actors and actresses in this country. You have got hundreds of starving actors to support in New York, and with the unemployment problem in the country I would like to shut the doors to all foreign actors of any kind. I would be willing to go that far. We need to keep those jobs for our own people.

Mr. CELLER. No; that is not true. That statement may meet the claim of the masses, the unthinking masses, but that is not true. Mr. SCHULTE. I would not say "unthinking masses." The gentleman evidently has some unthinking masses in his district.

Mr. CELLER. We have them in all districts.

Mr. SCHULTE. Pardon me. I have not.

Mr. CELLER. I will say this: That the presence of a foreign actor on occasion may give employment to thousands of American workmen who otherwise would not be employed.

Mr. WIEDEMAN. They would be employed in other pictures if they were not employed in that particular one.

Mr. CELLER. I am speaking of the supernumeraries and the extra hands and the scene shifters, designers, dressmakers, and others. Mr. SCHULTE. Now, I am out of the theater business.

Mr. CELLER. I am not in it.

Mr. SCHULTE. I have been in it all my life. Now, let us get this record correct. You say it will cause unemployment of thousands of people, scene shifters and workmen, on some of the greatest shows in the country? Is that right? We will take the gentleman's own city of New York. You will never see over 40 or 45 on the stage at any one time of scene shifters, property men, and everything else connected with the stage. Now, what do you mean by "thousands"? Mr. CELLER. How about the scene painters.

Mr. SCHULTE. One scene takes a week.

Mr. CELLER. And the dressmakers and costumers.

Mr. SCHULTE. That will employ 10 or 15 on a show like the "Follies."

Mr. CELLER. And ushers.

Mr. SCHULTE. They will be there whether this particular show is there or not.

Mr. CELLER. The theater may be dark and the ushers may not have any employment at all.

Mr. SCHULTE. Not in my knowledge of the show business, because if the gentleman's "Shining Hour" is not in there, one of the greatest American writers of all times, George M. Cohan, would be given a chance and an opportunity to give us some more "Forty-five Minutes from Broadway" and things of that kind that the American public

want.

Mr. CELLER. George M. Cohan has not been deprived of opportunity. He is in a box-office success now, called "Ah, Wilderness", in New York. I do not seek to deprive American actors and actresses of employment. I want them employed at all times in preference to the foreign actors, but there are occasions where it is essential to bring them in to play certain peculiar,unusual parts, and the managers and the producers should not be restrained from bringing them in.

Mr. SCHULTE. If the gentleman will take page 2 of this bill he will see that we do not bar distinguished actors.

Mr. CELLER. That is true, but he must be distinguished before he comes. The actor who is already distinguished can come in. That is not the point. I am not concerned with those distinguished but with those not as yet distinguished.

Mr. SCHULTE. Line 1, page 2, provides that he can come in if "he is of distinguished merit and ability as an actor."

Mr. CELLER. I agree with the gentleman on that.

The CHAIRMAN. May I clear something up, both for the witness and my colleague? Under the present law any person who appears before an American consul, by the mere statement that he is an actor, gets exemption; that is, he does not come under the contract-labor provision at all. He comes in here whether he is in fact an actor or not. It is nothing to the consul, and the consul is compelled more or less to visa his passport, and there have been brought in thousands of these so-called "actors" who in my opinion are not actors at all; they just take advantage of the loose law.

We have thousands of American actors who are of high standing, of good families, and who are starving today. The English do not let our people come in; the French do not let our people come in; the whole world has barred our actors out, and we have been a lot of simpletons for allowing these people under this provision of law to come in exempt from contract-labor provisions on the claim that they are actors.

Now, what does this bill do? It simply says that if a man has merit or distinction he can easily present these facts to the American consul, and he then is entitled to come in here exempt from contract-labor provisions.

The next point: If he is a character that we cannot find in the United States, let an American manager make application to the Department of Labor to waive the contract-labor provision? I have heard arguments-the last time I think it was from you and other distinguished gentlemen, who I am not quarreling with-that they needed some Italians because the Italians here had lost their language in this country. Well, if you cannot find persons of that kind in this country who can act, you can go before the Department of Labor and prove by affidavit that you cannot find this particular character, then that person will be entitled to come in under other existing provisions of law which are not affected by this bill. So we are doing nothing to hurt anybody.

Mr. CELLER. I think the chairman's interpretation of the bill is erroneous. It is not the way it works out. I do not want to keep out celebrated actors, and I know that they can be brought in. I know that those of distinguished merit and ability can be brought in, but I am speaking of the ordinary actor that cannot be brought in, who is essential and may be peculiar in his talents; you do not put the word "peculiar" in there, but you simply say "must be of distinguished merit and ability." There may be a particular, peculiar character that he can represent, and the manager should have the right to bring him over here. He could not bring him over here under the contract labor clause, because he could not satisfy the contract labor provisions.

Mr. KRAMER. You mean that there are certain things that one foreigner might be able to furnish in a play that an American or any other man living in this country, whether American or naturalized, could not perform?