these people. Much of that advertising is stimulating the mental juices to see something foreign. It creates an appetite to see some foreign talent. The legitimate producer, in turn, becomes consciously or unconsciously aware of that turn on the part of the public and they go around to find people to satisfy that demand. Let us specialize on our own people and create the appetite in pictures and drama for our own people rather than use foreign talent which in turn can go back home and build castles.

The picture producers assert that this committee should consider that our foreign trade in merchandise is stimulated by the exhibition of American films in other countries, and that national recovery-I quote from their brief-"is largely dependent on maintaining and building the export trade of the Nation."

I ask you gentlemen to bear in mind that the great principle of the recovery program is the rehabilitation of the purchasing power of the American people, and that it is of paramount importance that the money that is spent by producers in the legitimate theater and picture industry for wages should go into the pockets of American actors and be spent in this country for American goods and thus we would be sure that the money would remain where it belongs. I submit that the complexities of the foreign-trade question cannot be solved by the defeat of this bill, but I assert positively that the primary purpose of feeding and clothing American actors and their families will be greatly advanced by the enactment of this bill. I hope you gentlemen will bear that in mind.

The picture producers are gravely disturbed over the exercise of the judgment of the American consuls. I will not say anything about that in this connection because I feel, from the questions that you have asked, that you have no difference of opinion on the exercise of the administration and discretionary functions by the officials of this Government.

The picture producers would have you reject this bill upon the further ground that the public "is fickle" and "clamors constantly for new faces." And I say to you, gentlemen, that I believe a grave injustice is done the public if the implication which I read is intended, namely, that the American public would prefer the foreign actor to such an extent that it would willingly see the American actor dispossessed from his profession and his family in want and distress to such an extent that they must become public charges.

Federal and State funds are even now being used to create employment for 152 beneficiaries out of at least 5,000 actors in actual need. The public has become so aware of such conditions, that far from being "fickle", it would prefer to have this Congress insure actual, dignified, commercial employment for American actors and conserve these public funds for more suitable purposes. By enacting this bill, the field of commercial employment for the American actor will be enlarged, his livelihood protected, and the American public will continue to receive entertainment of the highest professional quality. And even assuming that the public was "fickle" in the sense intended by the picture producers, it does not follow that it would cease attendance upon moving pictures performed by competent American actors merely because they were American. We need only refer to the enormous popularity of Mae West, Marie Dressler, and Katherine Hepburn to refute such an insinuation. The public taste to a tre

mendous extent is cultivated by careful publicity and exploitation. I think a fair statement of the public's attitude would be, not that it is "fickle", but that it rejects the bad play or film, and acclaims the good. And the good or bad in the public taste is not dependent upon the nationality of any particular actor.

The picture producers further claim that the necessity of importing 150 persons to render the dialogue of American films into foreign languages for foreign consumption is a reason for defeating this bill. For them, that is the most dangerous argument of all, and for this reason: The persons so imported are selected for their qualities of speech alone, they do not fall, many of them, within the category of "professional actors" even in their own countries. Their importation even under the existing law has been characterized in the committee in prior years as a "violation" of the present law. Certainly it cannot be denied that if a teacher, minister, lawyer, or other craftsman is brought here to speak a foreign language in the films and entered under the guise of a "professional" actor, that it is a subterfuge and perversion of the law. It is not creditable to the movingpicture industry as an evasion of law and it is not dignified as a national function of our immigration department. Such a subterfuge, and a plea for its continuance, is no argument for the defeat of this bill. This bill should be reported favorably for the protection of the American actor. Let the motion-picture producers seek among the 120,000,000 population of this country for the 150 speakers of foreign language dialogue. There is probably no other country in the world where every foreign language is spoken and every race is represented as it is in the United States. Then, if they cannot get their 150 people who can talk Spanish, French, or German, or whatever language they wish out of the 120,000,000 people in the United States, let them come down to the Department of Labor and take advantage of the provision that labor which cannot be found in this country can be imported, and if that is not satisfactory then surely this committee will entertain favorably an amendment restricted to that particular question, but to defeat this bill on this argument, on such a narrow issue as that, is unwarranted. In my opinion it would be unstatesmanlike. This bill is needed to stop the hole in the dike. It is the finger that will hold up the wall where a stream of immigrants is coming in; and gentlemen, it is my opinion that when you are told that only 16 aliens are playing on Broadway today the gap is much larger and there is a danger that it will become larger still if it is not stopped.

Mr. LANZETTA. Did I understand you to say that in South America and in Europe people did not care to see actors of their own country? Miss HOLT. That is quite true.

Mr. LANZETTA. Now, does not that statement defeat your very argument that it is a peculiar psychology of all people to see something foreign and we Americans are not free from that peculiar psychology?

Miss HOLT. That is not the point that Mr. Orr made.

Mr. LANZETTA. Don't you think that is one reason why these people in the foreign countries refused to see people of their own countries? Miss HOLT. I do not think so. I think it is due to the direct demand made by publicity and advertising.

Mr. LANZETTA. As a matter of fact, don't we always like to see foreign countries?

Miss HOLT. But the strange part of that is this, that in this same presentation that was made last year by the motion picture people and in the presentation that they filed this year, they say that their foreign trade is to some extent dependent upon engaging foreign stars in their own countries-in other words, the exact converse of what Mr. Orr stated, and I am glad to refer to it, because I wanted to make this comment upon it. If that is true, then surely Greta Garbo, Maurice Chevalier, Anna Sten, and Marlene Dietrich are not needed for the making of pictures for foreign trade.

Mr. LANZETTA. I am in favor of this whether the motion-picture people are or not, but I am trying to bring out this point. The peculiar psychology of human beings is to see things that are different, and that psychology applies to other people as well as to American people. Miss HOLT. I grant you to this extent, that if an original French film is shown here we go to see it because it will show the French customs, and the dress of the people, but when you see Maurice Chevalier in one of his productions, that is something entirely different.

The CHAIRMAN. It is moved that we adjourn. The committee will go into executive session tomorrow morning on this legislation and before we do so we would like to hear from the State Department and the Department of Labor for a brief session tomorrow morning. Miss HOLT. Mr. George M. Cohan, who is playing in one of our foremost successes, has filed that petition [indicating] asking you to pass this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. We have these petitions, and I will get them into the record tomorrow morning.

(Thereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the committee adjourned to meet tomorrow, Wednesday, Feb. 28, 1934, at 10 a.m.)

ACTORS UNDER CONTRACT LABOR PROVISIONS OF THE

IMMIGRATION LAWS

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 1934

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:25 a.m., in the committee room, House Office Building, Hon. Samuel Dickstein (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. We will first hear from Mr. John Farr Simmons, who is Chief of the Visa Division of the State Department.

STATEMENT OF JOHN FARR SIMMONS, CHIEF OF THE VISA DIVISION, STATE DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D.C.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you give your name and position to the reporter?

Mr. SIMMONS. My name is John Farr Simmons, and I am Chief of the Visa Division of the State Department.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, the interest of the Department of State which I represent, as regards the bill (H.R. 3674) now under consideration, is chiefly the administrative side of that bill. I would say, however, that the Department of State has no objection whatever to the passage of this bill if it is shown that such a bill is necessary. I believe that the question of necessity for such a bill has been amply discussed both pro and con by the various witnesses who have appeared before the committee in the two previous hearings. I believe that their testimony has been very valuable and very complete.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you been out in the field, Mr. Simmons? Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; I have just come from the field. My last post was in the consulate at Cologne, Germany.

The CHAIRMAN. How long were you there?

Mr. SIMMONS. Eighteen months.

The CHAIRMAN. Where was your post before that?

Mr. SIMMONS. My post before that was in Mexico City.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you had any other posts besides Mexico City?

Mr. SIMMONS. Prior to that I was in the field in the consular service in Vienna, Paris, and Riga.

The CHAIRMAN. And you have been in the service for how many years?

Mr. SIMMONS. I have been in the service for 17 years.

135