Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make just a few remarks about the city of Washington in comparison with other cities.

I have observed since the time I came to the city of Washington some 30 years ago that the comparative beauty of this city and the conveniences of this city compared with other cities has changed considerably.

Thirty years ago many people thought it was the greatest thing that ever happened in their lives to be able to say they visited Washington city, and we would talk a great deal about its beauty in comparison with other cities.

Last year it was my privilege and pleasure to take quite an extensive trip around this country, going down the east coast and crossing over around the Gulf, and over to the west coast, going up the west coast, and coming back through the Central States, and I find that there are many cities that compare very favorably and some are even much better; much more money spent in beautification; driveways and so forth around the city are broader, and there is more money spent in upkeep and the beautification of those driveways. Up around New York State they have beautiful driveways that just outdo Washington city to a great extent, and down through the South they have a good many now, and out on the west coast.

Before I made this trip I thought Washington city was the most beautiful city in the whole country, just outstanding, and now I find that it is different.

I think that Congress should reflect back to some of the days previous to 1922, and greatly increase its contribution here in order that we might have this city more outstanding and more comparable. I would like to see this city the most beautiful, outstanding city in the whole world; it should be, being the head of the greatest Government in the world.

Mr. BATES. Thank you very much.

Mr. ABSHER. Thank you.

Mr. BATES. Is Mr. Brylawski here, president of the Motion Picture Theater Owners of Metropolitan D. C.

Senator CAIN. Of course, he is. Your name having been previously referred to, we are ready to promptly listen, Mr. Witness. Mr. BRYLAWSKI. Give me a chance of rebuttal.

Senator CAIN. Yes.

STATEMENT OF A. JULIAN BRYLAWSKI, PRESIDENT, MOTION PICTURE THEATER OWNERS OF METROPOLITAN D. C., WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. Gentlemen, I would like to submit as part of the record a one-page summary of some of the objections that we have to H. R. 2279, and not burden you with a lot of conversation. (The document referred to is as follows:)

MOVIES AND TAXES

UNIVERSAL ENTERTAINMENT

Seeing movies is as much a part of the American way of life as reading the daily newspaper. The motion-picture industry is American born and Americaadeveloped. In some 16,500 theaters in the United States today more than 80,000,000 tickets are sold weekly to meet the demand for the country's first choice of inexpensive entertainment and visual information.

TAX ON MASSES

An admission tax on motion-picture shows is a tax on the masses-it affects not a few, but every man, woman, and child in the Nation who attends the movies.

MOVIEGOERS NOT "LUXURY SPENDERS"

Classifying attendance at motion-picture theaters as "luxury spending" in the same category as spending for expensive furs, jewelry, and liquor, is an arbitrary conclusion not supported by the facts. The great mass of motion-picture patrons are the low-salaried working people who find in the medium of the motion picture an economical means of mass entertainment and enlightenment. For this great mass, it is the one type of entertainment which families can afford.

THE EXHIBITOR'S STAGGERING TAX LOAD

Look at some of the taxes to which the industry is now subject:

Federal Social security; Federal income taxes; 20-percent admissions tax; unemployment.

District of Columbia: District of Columbia income taxes; real-property taxes; special assessments; license fees; inspection and protection fees for police, fire, and health purposes; 5-percent tax on corporate earnings.

TAX COMPARISONS SHOW INEQUITIES

Motion-picture exhibitors are more than willing to pay their just share of taxes levied uniformly for the public welfare. However, to single out the amusement industry for an unjust burden of taxes is arbitrary and discriminatory. In many instances, the taxes imposed upon the amusement industry have been found, upon comparison, to amount to several times the taxes imposed on other local industries in the same community.

PUBLIC-DEBT REMINDERS

Posting an admission-tax schedule on the box office is a constant reminder of the excessive cost of government-city, State, and Federal.

EXCESSIVE TAXATION IMPEDED FREEDOM OF COMMUNICATION

Freedom of communication embraces not only freedom of speech, press, and radio, but also of the motion picture. In the community, the motion-picture theater occupies a place on a par with the press and radio in molding public pinion. Its power for good should not be destroyed by excessive taxation.

ADMISSION TAXES IMPEDE CHILD DEVELOPMENT

No distinction is made in the tax between an adult and a child—each pays his pro rata share as fixed by law. Our young children are learning more today, by reason of the contribution of motion pictures to education, than did their parents. Film classics for children, unlike books, are not always available on a bookshelf. In a relatively short time a motion picture goes out of circulation. Hence, the necessity for keeping alive for educational and cultural purposes the children's film classics. Taxes that impede the attendance of children at picture shows that inspire and uplift their moral and cultural aims do more harm than good.

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. I naturally felt very gratified that the Commissioners had said that they would not press for the amusement tax, but I would like to say for Mrs. Wright's benefit that we are not getting off scot free.

There has been some talk in the papers, and with some substance, that the license fees on theaters or possibly a seat tax would not be unacceptable. Frankly, I will say it is not acceptable.

As a matter of fact, when the Commissioners held public hearings on these various tax bills, and knowing the need for increased revenues,

we were very frank in telling the Commissioners that we would rather pay an increased tax ourselves than have a tax on our patrons.

That is not as altruistic as it sounds, because we know that an increase in the amusement tax would naturally cause a great drop in attendance, and cities that have ventured and experimented with the amusement tax have found out in some cases that they would have been far better off paying themselves; attendance has dropped alarmingly in certain cities. I know of cities that show a record of 35 to 40 percent in the drop of admissions by reason of additional taxes.

At the time we had that hearing, therefore, in answer to Commissioner Mason's inquiry did we have any suggestions to raise revenues, I told them at the time that I thought the motion-picture theaters of the District of Columbia were paying a low license tax, and quoted to him figures showing that what we were paying in other cities, and offered to raise our license fee ten times.

Senator CAIN. Would you go into that a little for us as to what you were paying.

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. Yes. According to a law that was passed-I do not remember the date, but I know who proposed the law-the license fees of the amusement places in the District of Columbia were supposed to be set up on the basis of cost of inspection.

Now, let me say to you gentlemen, if I may, without taking too much time, that we are inspected frequently; we are inspected very thoroughly once a year, for which we pay an inspection fee; that is in addition to a license fee, but it is a very moderate one; and then our exits and the conditions of aisles are inspected frequently, all with our entire cooperation because we feel that anything we can do that the city exercises the authority on for the safety of our patrons-is wholeheartedly our problem, too. For that service we pay $30 a year for a motion-picture house and $50 a year for a house using movable

scenery.

The disparity there is very great; that is, that a motion picture theater using no movable scenery of any kind, there the conditions remain the same all the time, I mean from week to week; whereas a theater such as the National or the Capitol or the Earle, when we had shows there, bring in new performers and new scenery every week, and they require an inspection every week because every bit of that scenery must be tested and found to be fire-resistant or fireproofed before it can be used, and theaters having movable scenery are also compelled to have other fireproof safeguards, sprinklers, water curtains, asbestos curtains, and standpipes which also require frequent inspection. Therefore, there is really a disparity between the $30 that the motion picture house, per se, pays, and the larger theaters; they should pay a great deal more, but still the price was set by the Congress at $50.

We offered to raise our rates 10 times in the hope of raising some revenue. Of course, it will not meet the deficit of the District of Columbia.

Senator CAIN. How many movie houses are there?

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. Sixty-six. They have been collecting $2,000, and we proposed that they collect $20,000, but that also brought up at the time, and I think now it is being considered by the Commissionerswe also brought up the fact that if the licenses were raised 10 times that they should be on a more equitable basis. There was no reason

for a little theater on Ninth Street paying possibly the same prices as the Palace with 2,200 seats and the Earle.

Senator CAIN. Now every theater pays exactly the same?

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. Yes. So, we suggested that possibly a seat tax would be a more equitable way to distribute the burden. It is much easier for the big theater to pay five or six times what the small one can because it can earn it by taking in more money through admissions since the admission prices are higher. So, it was revived, and we are being told it is being revived, and we are not going to oppose it unless the price of that seat tax gets out of proportion to what we think it should be.

Senator CAIN. And that matter would have to go through the Congress?

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. Yes, it would have to go through the Congress. Now, on the question of licensing, I have also brought to the attention of the Commissioners, not once but several times, the fact that while they are collecting license fees in the District of Columbia it is by no means the fulfillment of that possibility. While a theater pays $30, and I believe you were told at one hearing that the ball park pays five, we are also faced with the fact that a little grocery store pays a license fee of $15, and the big Hecht Co. and Woodward & Lothrop, which do a hundred million dollars worth of business, pay nothing. Therefore, I think if the whole question of licensing were explored it would be found to contain a great deal more revenue. Senator CAIN. And more equitable probably.

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. It would also-the fact that any business has to take out an annual license more or less brings them under governmental supervision because, for instance, the theaters, they make their inspection, and if they find that one exit door is not working properly or one red light is out, we are required to repair that before the license is issued for the following year.

Now, we are faced with a revision of the building code. In fact, I have been rather active on it, and we are going to try to bring all the buildings of Washington to where there is a public assemblage of more than 50-and that figure of 50 is used in the code-to at least some standard of safety comparable with modern requirements.

If each building, therefore, each business, were required to take out a license that job would be simplified and made easier-at least, the supervision of it would be, and you would have a continuing supervision.

I am a long way from amusement taxes, gentlemen, and I thank you for your indulgence.

Senator CAIN. Well, it is a very interesting observation. I think your observations are typical of examples throughout American communities generally. Taxes on business establishments simply seem to grow, and some day you wake up and you find that you are getting too much from some establishments, nothing from others, and not nearly enough from others, and then you are faced with a practical problem that takes a long time to solve.

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. Not only that, Senator, but these taxes, these license fees, can by no means be passed on to the public. This increase in tax that we are suggesting, we are perfectly willing to absorb. If it were an admission tax it would, of necessity, be passed on.

Senator CAIN. That is right.

Mr. BRYLAWSKI. Thank you a lot.

Senator CAIN. I wonder if Mr. J. P. Hayes, general manager of the National Symphony Orchestra, is present?

STATEMENT OF J. P. HAYES, GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. HAYES. Good morning, Senator. My name is J. P. Hayes, and I am general manager of the National Symphony Orchestra Association.

I would like also to speak in two other capacities, manager of the Hayes Concert Bureau, my own, and as a citizen, and veteran of World War II.

I will speak exclusively on the admissions tax. I am strongly opposed to it.

Before the war I was manager of the symphony orchestra, back in the old days we all speak of, when this type of concert presentation was nonprofit on the other end, such organizations like the Metropolitan Opera, the Chicago Opera, and the San Francisco Opera, 25 symphony societies, were all tax-exempt. There was not even the old 10 percent then.

In the old days there was the 10 percent tax on movies. With the coming of the war in 1942, there was a need for broadening the tax base, and the amusement tax was then changed to what, on the statute books, was an amusement tax, and as such, excluded church societies; it was changed to just that, which means that instead of an amuse-, ment tax, one pays now first 10, and then later 20 percent, when it was further broadened in 1943; you now pay for the privilege of passing a door when the church societies give amusement to raise money for paying off a mortgage on the church, that was passed, and that is how broad it became. That is overlooked by some people.

Now, it is proposed that an additional 10 percent, for a total of 30, be levied on this type of thing, broadly called amusement but more correctly called admissions. I think it is time to look the other way and review the old basis as to whether now, having gone through this war phase, and having become, in their own words, "the pet of the Treasury Department," the easiest tax to collect, no great troubleit is paid up, we make up our box office statements, and so much goes to the Government, one check there; there is no collection problem, and it is the old story of it gets to be convenient. I admire your phrase that you add and you add. When will the straw break the camel's back?

Not very far from here is the city of Philadelphia, and they tried that, and here is what happens. It does not mean that the people stop going to concerts and movies, and so forth, any more than when you put on a sales tax the people stop buying. What they do is this: They go less; they buy fewer times. So, instead of this gravy money they look for there is a contraction of it entirely, and you have less volume, and the fact is that in the city of Philadelphia, even with continued high income levels, and I know the story there very well, there is less volume of dollars coming in when the tax was lower. These are strong facts, and they are facts.