giving also mentioning Russia, mentioning that the respective countries subsidized the theater, it seems to me that that subsidization came from the United States in the form of the Marshall plan fund and the ECA fund and other funds which this Government has sent over and which in turn was used for that purpose.

Mr. LANGNER. I think you are quite correct. I have heard it said that but for the subsidies that we gave to England, it would not be possible for them to subsidize their theaters. However, I feel that on the other hand this subsidizing of theaters has gone on for many many years and I would regard it as something which shows that governments are willing to recognize the importance of the legitimate theater.

Mr. SADLAK. Then they ought to use some of their own government funds and we in turn ought to be able to help our people back here with our funds.

Mr. LANGNER. I think they do use some of their government funds. I do not think it is all our money by any means. In fact, they did subsidize the theaters long before we helped them. I only gave that illustration to show the cultural value of the theater and how important it is for us to realize that the legitimate theater needs help at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. They even subsidized theaters 2,000 years ago. Mr. LANGNER. That is right, sir. They did in the days of Greece. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You are very welcome.

Mr. REILLY. The next witness is Mr. Wolfe Kaufman of the Association of Theatrical Press Agents and Managers, AFL.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kaufman, we are glad to see you here. We have your full name.

STATEMENT OF WOLFE KAUFMAN, PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF THEATRICAL PRESS AGENTS AND MANAGERS, AFL Mr. KAUFMAN. My purpose here tonight is to discuss the matter of excise taxes as it affects the legitimate theater industry, and thus affects the livelihood of myself and members of my union.

I think I can make the picture for you frighteningly clear by explaining a few of the immediate pertinent facts. Every time you see a legitimate play in a theater you are watching at least 3 of our members; 1 of them is the press agent, 2 of them are managers. Our union has a membership of approximately 600 across the United States. When times are good, at the peak of the theatrical season, about 60 percent of our members are employed. When times are bad, as at the present moment, about 20 percent of our members are employed. Five years ago the ratio of employment for our members was about 30 percent at the low point and about 70 percent at the high point. Ten years ago it was about 50 percent and about 80 percent.

In other words, it is a slowly diminishing field. As a labor union, interested in the welfare of its members, we are naturally concerned and worried. We have watched the situation and worried about it and come to a number of conclusions. We have agreed that the causes of this decline are largely traceable to the fact that costs of production

and operation have gone up at a much greater rate than income has increased, so that producers of plays (our bosses) or operators of theaters (our employers) have found, more and more, that there is insufficient possibility of profit. And as realistic laborers we know that when our employers are forced to the wall, for whatever reason, not only they, but we, too, are out of business.

Now, it is a fact not generally realized that theater ticket prices have gone up very little in the past few years. You keep hearing about the high cost of ticket prices, but the peak or top prices have not gone up at all, in most cases. Thus, we find that the top prices for shows on Broadway musicals is either five or six dollars today, plus a 20 percent tax. The top prices for the big musicals of 20 years ago, the George White Scandals, the Ziegfeld Follies, and so forth, was the same five or six dollars. The Earl Carroll Vanities in 1930 charged $10 each for its top-price tickets.

But we can't charge more today. The public simply will not pay more, and is complaining constantly about these high prices.

It has been impossible to increase the top prices, except on occasion, and minutely. But since some readjustment has had to be made; some of the bottom, or lowest prices, have been raised. So that actually the income in theaters during the past 10 years has been increased approximately 10 percent. This in the face of increased costs of more than 200 percent, according to the figures that we have.

Now, in the face of constantly new and added competition in such fields as radio and television-and here I might add one other point— television, radio, movies, are competition just as has been mentionedthey are not half as bad as the fact that frequently, especially in the big city, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, they are performed in large theaters, very large theaters, with audiences and without cost, without cost at all which also means without tax of any kind. So that we get not only competition at home but competition in the theater across the street with stars and with no cost and with no tax. Now, it ill-behooves me, as a taxpaying worker, to point fingers. But perhaps it might not be amiss at this moment to point out the fact that the theater, in the United States, is fast becoming a stepchild. In every major country in the world, the State either operates or helps the institution of the theater. In every country, that is, except in the United States. I do not know whether a subsidized or Federal or State theater is a good thing or not, and I do not intend to discuss it here. But I do think it is apropos to point out that far from helping the theater to continue as an art form, the American Government is seemingly isolating it and punishing it. The opera, dance, and ballet, in America, are exempt from taxes. The same is true of orchestras, and fine music. The radio and television fields contribute nothing by way of admission taxation. The Mason bill recently passed by Congress, clears motion-picture-theater patrons from having to pay admission taxes. So that, as it stands at present, the legitimate theater is the only branch of the theatrical industry still hampered by admission taxes.

We are the poorest branch of the amusement industry. We have the shortest possible margin of profit. We have the longest possible margin of disaster. And we are the only ones, if the Mason bill passes, who are hampered by a 20 percent tax on top of all our troubles.

And that is why we come to you at this point, virtually with our last breath, to ask for help.

Mr. EBERHARTER. It is a pretty sad tale.

Mr. KAUFMAN. I am afraid So, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir, for your appearance and the information you have given the committee with reference to this problem.

The next witness?

Mr. LANGNER. May I introduce Mr. Dennis King, representing the Actors Equity Association and Chorus Equity Association. I am sure several of you are familiar with Mr. King and his career.

The CHAIRMAN. I am very familiar with his career. I do not believe we have any music here by which we could enjoy his singing. It is a great honor to have you here, sir, as all the others.

STATEMENT OF DENNIS KING, REPRESENTING THE ACTORS EQUITY ASSOCIATION AND CHORUS EQUITY ASSOCIATION

Mr. KING. I am speaking to you for the living theater which has been part and parcel of the American tapestry of civilization and culture for over 200 years. I urge you to lift from the legitimate theater a burden which it has borne for 35 years and which has grown heavier and more burdensome each year. I remind you that this tax was first imposed as a war tax of the First World War in 1911 with a promise that it would be removed at that time. It is one of the handful of taxes which was continued for the entire period between the world wars. And when war again involved this country, this tax was not merely continued, it was doubled. Again, the theater was promised that 6 months from the end of the war this tax would be removed. The admissions tax is heavy, it adds materially to the expense of theatergoing. Progressively, there are fewer people who are able and willing to pay for it. We are entering upon a period in which people are going to look at their money more carefully than they have in the past and to spend it more grudgingly. And when people look at money they have to spend for a theater ticket and see that the amount of the tax upon that ticket is about as much as they would have to spend for a whole evening's entertainment at a motion. picture theater, a great many of them will feel that the difference in pleasure, great as it may be, will not be worth that much money.

With the development of that feeling, theater income will decline still further. It has already declined from $80 million during the war to less than $50 million last year. The decline in income means that there is less money available to put a play on, to keep it running, and to put back into new productions. That means primarily less work for all of us in the theater, but it also affects the income of the Government in the long run for we all pay taxes only on the money we earn. To forego a relatively small amount of admissions taxes to keep us working may produce more revenue than the amount of the tax. You may think that is a condition which applies to the entire entertainment field and it is no heavier than that borne by all competing forms of entertainment. If the motion picture industry was able to persuade you that it was hardship case deserving of relief, how much more consideration should you give to the legitimate

theater? You were moved by the statistics which indicated to you that nearly 5,000 motion-picture theaters had been closed in recent years and more would have to close if tax relief were not given. You were moved by that and quite rightly.

May I tell you very briefly what the present plight of the theater is, not in the number of theaters alone but in the actual employment of actors. The Actors Equity Association has for the last 5 years kept a record of employment of its members. The figures for the last complete theater year running from June 1, 1951, to May 31, 1952, showed that in 12 months 1 actor in 7 did not work at all. In 12 months 1 actor in 2 worked less than 10 weeks. In 12 months 1 actor in 6, of those who worked at all, worked 26 weeks. Now, I know that everyone who comes before this committee feels that the industry for which he speaks is a special case deserving of particular consideration.

I know that you cannot give such consideration to everyone who asks it. Somewhere you have to draw the line between those which are essential and those which are not. But before you draw the line in this instance, I think you would be justified in stopping for a moment's consideration as to what sort of an institution you are being asked to help. For the theater is not just another business or industry whose existence or disappearance would mean little to the welfare of the country. It is an art. It is one of the greatest arts which people have always loved and served for more than the money they earned from it and it is one of the arts by which the greatness of a nation's culture is judged. And the American theater has always been representative of the finest that we in America have had to offer. Our American standards of production are among the best in the world. Our contribution to the world in this form of art has been immeasurable in terms of great actors, great playwrights, great producers, great directors. The American theater has indeed added to the pleasure and joy of living to the American public. The American theater has always been the great instrument in enlightening others outside our hemisphere of the tremendous advantages and benefits of the American way of life. Our American theater has been the original from whence other media of entertainment have sprung; from which other entertainment media have secured their life talents. The actor, author, designer, director, producer have all been secured for radio, television, motion pictures, from the parent of them all-the living theater. It is finally an art to which the country, even Congress itself, turns instinctively, when disasters threaten, when emergencies develop. The Congress recognizes at such times that the theater and its people are necessary to the national effort, recognizes that necessity by the priorities it grants them. Are they to be considered merely luxuries now that the emergency is for the moment lessened?

We of the theater have appeared before this committee many times, always have been received with courtesy and have been given promises that consideration would be given our needs and our requests. Now I am asking this committee and this Congress to give tangible proof of belief in and affection for, the theater by doing something for it. I believe that the theater is worth the attention and the consideration of the Congress of the United States. I believe that it ought not to have to beg Congress for the right to live and to continue its contributions to the culture of this great country. But if such a plea is necessary, please, please don't ignore it. We ask you to remove the

admissions tax from the living theater. Our whole lives and the life of the art we serve hangs in the balance. Hear us, believe us, help us. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you, Mr. King, for your very able presentation. It was very interesting and a very logical presentation. Mr. KING. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Byrnes will inquire.

Mr. BYRNES. To what extent, Mr. King, are actors able to supplement the work they might ordinarily get in legitimate theater in television at the present time?

Mr. KING. Well, a little but not very much because the television theater today is tremendously crowded and it has been a great help to us when we have been out of jobs. I am not speaking of myself specifically because I am, I suppose, in the higher brackets, but the rank and file of my association it has helped but not tremendously.

Mr. BYRNES. These figures you cited on page 4 of the one actor who did not work at all, and so forth, does that mean they did not even work in television or work in a summer theater?

Mr. KING. Yes, sir. They may have sold ties at Macy's during the

summer.

Mr. BYRNES. These figures relate not just to work in the legitimate theater but allied work.

Mr. KING. No, I believe those figures you have, sir, relate specifically to the living theater.

Mr. BYRNES. So that some of these you show here as not working at all may have worked a short time in television?

Mr. KING. No, sir; I doubt that. I am trying to tell you, Mr. Byrnes, that those figures you have there relate to the living theater and not to television.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Eberharter will inquire.

Mr. EBERHARTER. Are some of these summer theaters aided in their finances by local communities?

Mr. KING. I believe Mr. Langner will give you a much better statement on that, but I believe the local communities do help a lot in subsidizing the theaters, the summer theaters.

Mr. EBERHARTER. That is what I mean exactly. They do help in some cases in order to preserve this art.

Mr. KING. Yes, sir. There are subscribers in almost every community in which a stock company plays.

Mr. EBERHARTER. You get the civic bodies and the chambers of commerce and other interested organizations to help sell season tickets? Mr. KING. Yes, because of course, they believe it is a great asset to that community.

Mr. EBERHARTER. So they appreciate it is really an art and they want to help preserve it.

Mr. KING. Yes, sir.

Mr. EBERHARTER. And entertain the people, too.

Mr. KING. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you for your appearance, Mr. King. Mr. REILLY. Mr. Chairman, first, may we thank you for the opportunity to be heard on behalf of the four different groups that were here. We would also like permission to file a brief with more detailed statistics on some of the theater operations that were touched on but not actually given in detail.