ACTORS UNDER CONTRACT LABOR PROVISIONS OF THE IMMIGRATION LAWS TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 1934 COMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION, Washington, D.C. The committee met at 10:30 a.m., Hon. Samuel Dickstein (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. The bill H.R. 3674 is now in order for public hearing. The committee will proceed with the best part of the day to hear witnesses who should be heard early so that they can go back home, and at the conclusion we will adjourn on this bill until Monday and Tuesday to hear both those for and those against the bill. I understand Congressman Celler has a very brief statement to make and wants to go back to the Judiciary Committee, and I am going to be a little out of order with him because I want to hear first those in support of the bill and I understand he is opposed to it. (H.R. 3674 referred to is as follows:) [H.R. 3674, 73d Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To clarify the application of the contract-labor provisions of the immigration laws to actors Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the contract-labor provisions of the immigration laws shall be applicable to alien actors, whether coming for permanent residence or for a temporary period. SEC. 2. No alien actor shall, as such, be considered a "professional actor", an "artist", or a "singer", within the meaning of the fifth proviso of section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1917 (U.S.C., title 8, sec. 136 (h), second proviso) unless— (1) he is of distinguished merit and ability as an actor; and (2) his professional engagements within the United States are of a character requiring superior talent. SEC. 3. In the case of an alien actor coming for a temporary period, who is exempted from the contract-labor provisions of the immigration laws by the fifth proviso of section 3 of the Immigration Act of 1917 as limited by section 2 of this act, his admission to the United States shall be under such conditions as may be by regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Labor (including where deemed necessary the giving of bond with sufficient surety) to insure that at the termination of his contract he will depart voluntarily from the United States. STATEMENT OF HON. EMANUEL CELLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I may be pardoned a personal note at the threshold of my remarks by saying that I have seen eye for eye with your distinguished chairman and we have fought shoulder to shoulder in immigration battles for the las 1 decade. Unfortunately I find myself in a position where I must this morning disagree with him and take exception to his bill, which I understand has for its purpose (if I may be privileged to read from the report to the last session of the House on a similar bill) the following: It is the purpose of this bill to provide that alien actors shall not be entitled to the exemption from the contract labor provisions of immigration, either as professional actors or artists or singers, unless alien actors as such are of distinguished merit and ability; and furthermore, that their engagements in this country require actors having superior talent. I am inclined to the belief that rather selfish interests unwarrantedly are behind this bill. I do not believe that the proponents of the bill really appreciate the importance of the bill in the sense of the great havoc that would be wrought upon the art of the drama and upon the industry of motion pictures. We in this country, instead of encouraging the drama, the spoken drama, have been placing during the last few years all sorts and kinds of obstacles in its way. In Europe, in many countries in Europe, they subsidize the drama; they elect poet laureates; they give pensions to actors and dramatists; they build state theaters; they provide all manner and kind of subsidies for the drama. Mr. WEIDEMAN. Will the gentleman pardon an interruption there? Of course, this bill would not keep out any poet laureates, would it? Mr. CELLER. I do not think so. I hope it would not. But if the gentleman will be patient till I finish my argument, I will be glad to answer any questions he may wish to propound to me. We, on the other hand, instead of lending a helping hand, have been striking at the drama. We, for example, place an admission tax upon admissions to the theaters throughout the country, and thereby hinder and hurt the drama. And now, as a sort of a last straw, you want to exclude or place an embargo upon actors and actresses if they happen to be aliens. I say that if you do that, that is, pass this bill with this exclusion, and exclude these alien performers unless they be of exceptional ability, recognized merit-in other words, celebrated-you are going to hamper and hamstring all producers in their attempts to cast for proper actors and actresses; you will make it most difficult for them to get the proper personalities for the appropriate parts in their various productions. I believe it is perfectly proper to look upon the art of the theater or the art of the drama as you look upon any other kind of an art. If you have a manager or a producer who has been gathering together a group of thespians or actors to play appropriate parts, he is very much like the artist who paints a picture; he is no whit different than the person who is a sculptor, who is modeling in clay. He is dealing with an art. He is not dealing in persons; he is dealing in personalities, and therefore you must give him uttermost freedom. In a moment I shall tell you of certain productions where it was absolutely essential in the casting for parts to bring in alien talent, which talent was not celebrated, It would be just like taking away from the artist his red tints or his green tints or his other colors if you tried to take away from the manager or the producer his right to select a particular artist for a particular part. It would be like taking his tools from the sculptor. Let me illustrate what I mean in that regard by some of the productions that are now playing in New York. Recently I saw the play called "The Shining Hour", in fact I saw it last Friday night. It is a cast made up almost exclusively of British actors. Some are and some are not celebrated. Some are not of distinguished merit and ability. The cast is perfect. The removal of any one of these alien actors in this play would mar its perfection, and instead of having a box-office success you would have a dismal, miserable failure, and you would throw out of employment hundreds of American workmen who are supported by that outstanding box-office success. You would affect the employment of stage hands, scene shifters, scrub women, ushers, designers, costumers, dressmakers, scene makers, painters, musicians, billposters, advertisers, and whatnot. Mr. DIRKSEN. Will the gentleman yield there? Mr. CELLER. Yes. Mr. DIRKSEN. If this particular production were replaced by some other production that had its locale in America, in which the legitimate players were American personalities, is it not true that those same stage hands and carpenters, electricians and so on, would be absorbed, and that there is nothing to that argument? Mr. CELLER. Certainly, if there was a box-office success with a thoroughly American attraction, but that is quite beside the point. This happens to be a production containing a fair assortment of British actors, which is, as a matter of fact, a success, or rather will be a rather huge success. So it matters not, if you happen to have another American production, it does not displace this one; this exists and will exist for some period of time. Mr. DIRKSEN. Perhaps you had better answer this basic question. What is the gentleman's notion about the chief function of the play? Mr. CELLER. The chief function of a play is to give entertainment and to improve the esthetic tastes of the audience, "to hold the mirror up to nature", and in general to improve artistic values in this country. Mr. DIRKSEN. Assuming that to be true, just how much do the American people-how much does the American play-going public lose if the "Shining Hour" is displaced by some other play that is written and enacted in this country? Mr. CELLER. It is not a question of displacing. We do not know whether we can displace it by an American piece. That happens to be a gem, and we want to have the American public see that gem. I believe that the esthetic value, the dramatic values to the American public will be greatly enhanced by seeing that play. There is an excellent lesson involved in the play. There is a moral tone to that play which should not be missed by those who like the theater. But I say, if you take one of those British actors out of that production and you replace him by an American, you lose the perfect symmetry of that production, because this particular play has a thoroughly British setting, a thoroughly British atmosphere that would be woefully marred and destroyed by the attitudes, the mannerisms, and by the intonation of voice and by the speech of American actors. You could not possibly have the success of that production assured, replacing these British actors by American actors. Mr. WEIDEMAN. Will you yield for a question at that point? Mr. WEIDEMAN. In other words, we do not have actors that can portray British character? Is that it? Mr. CELLER. No; we have actors that can portray some British characters. I say they cannot portray these particular British characters. Mr. WIEDEMAN. Is it not a fact that good actors portray any character? Mr. CELLER. No, sir. Mr. WIEDEMAN. You are indicting all American actors? Mr. CELLER. No; I am not, and I will invite the gentleman to the New York theaters now and you can readily see, I am not indicting American actors. Mr. SCHULTE (interposing). Now, you say "the New York theaters." This law that we have before us pertains to the entire United States. Mr. CELLER. Certainly. Mr. SCHULTE. Not only New York City. Now, you say the "Shining Hour" is absolutely essential to the welfare of this Nation? If masses of the people of America do not see this particular show with those particular actors, it means the downfall of this country? Is that right? Mr. CELLER. I did not say that. Mr. SCHULTE. I thought your statement was leading up to that. Mr. CELLER. No; your conclusions are wholly unwarranted from what I said. I would say this Mr. SCHULTE (interposing). Just a minute you are leaving the impression with this Immigration Committee that it is absolutely essential that is my version of it-that the American public see the 'Shining Hour", owing to the fact that it is cast wholly British. Mr. CELLER. I did not say anything of the sort. Mr. SCHULTE. You are leading up to that point. Mr. CELLER. You made that conclusion. Mr. SCHULTE. I certainly did. Mr. CELLER. I can give you reasons but I cannot give you an understanding of the proposition. Mr. SCHULTE. Is not that owing to the fact, of course, that we both lead up to the story in a different light? Mr. CELLER. Maybe. But I would say this: If we would lend more encouragement to the drama, then perhaps we could get more of the New York productions, these fine New York productions, in the community where the gentleman lives, and he would probably then have a better appreciation of the American drama. Mr. SCHULTE. I am going to agree with the gentleman there that he is right, but it is not necessary that the drama be composed of foreigners. Is not that true? Mr. CELLER. I did not say that. I do not want to give that impression. Mr. SCHULTE. Well, we are just trying to get you on record here so that we will know just where you are regarding the American actors and foreign actors. Mr. CELLER. Will you pardon me just a minute? I just want to state this, that wherever an American actor can be hired, that American actor should be hired preeminently over any other actor, but there are certain plays which require alien actors to play certain parts, and managers should not be compelled to hire American actors to play those parts which are essentially British or German or Swedish or whatever they may be, and Americans in those parts would dismally fail because they could not portray them adequately. Mr. SCHULTE. Would it be a terrific loss to this country if that foreign play, any particular foreign play, was not enacted in this country, and in its place were substituted an American play? Mr. CELLER. It does not follow that you are going to substitute it with an American play. We give encouragement to American authors and there will be authors here today, American authors, who will tell you that art is international, not national. It should know no frontiers. We must have British art just as we must have British authors. We should have French art and authors, Spanish, Russian, and so forth. We are very anxious, and the American theater-going public, the American reading public, are very anxious to get the plays of Galsworthy, Wilde, Shaw, and the plays of Shakespeare and the plays of Barrie and the plays of Voltaire one of which is now being produced at the National Theater this very evening. So we must get the foreign actors in here to give a foreign flavor; otherwise, you will not encourage your American drama; you will stand still; you will not move. We get ideas from abroad. We cannot build a sort of Chinese wall, as we do against products by our high-tariff walls, against alien authors and writers. By the same reasoning we should not shut out alien actors interpreting the alien dramatists and authors. Mr. DIES. The trouble about all this argument, Mr. Celler, is that you are getting away from the bill. Now, here is the point: This bill does not keep out actors of distinguished merit and ability. It does not keep them out where their professional engagements in the United States are the best thing for the drama, which you are arguing about. You say we ought to have these distinguished actors, these men who have personality and portray characters in a way that we cannot duplicate or imitate in the United States, but that is not the type of man that would be excluded by this bill. Now, let us address ourselves to the bill itself. Mr. CELLER. If the gentlemen will be patient and will not ask so many questions-I will answer each one at a time I shall give him my views and cover all points. Mr. KRAMER. May I ask you one question, please? What do you mean-maybe we can settle his question if he will answer my question-will you kindly define what you mean by "New York distinguished actors and producers"? The CHAIRMAN. Now we will hear from California. Mr. KRAMER. Just a minute. I want to know what you mean by "New York distinguished actors." Mr. CELLER. I did not happen to say "New York." Mr. KRAMER. Oh, yes; you said "New York." Mr. CELLER. I do not mean to confine all the distinguished actors to New York. Mr. KRAMER. You think we have some in Hollywood, Calif.? Mr. CELLER. There is no doubt about that. Mr. DIES. Where is Hollywood? [Laughter.] The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, one at a time, please. Mr. KRAMER. I would like to have your explanation. Mr. CELLER. It so happens that there are more theaters in New York than elsewhere and |