TESTIMONY OF HENRY EDWARD SCHULTZ, GENERAL COUNSEL, ASSOCIATION OF COMIC
            MAGAZINE PUBLISHERS, INC., NEW YORK, N. Y.

            Mr. BEASER. Will you state your name, address, and occupation, for the record?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. Henry Edward Schultz. I am an attorney, counsel for the Association of Comic Book Publishers. I am at 205 East 42d Street here in New York.

            Mr. BEASER. Will you tell us a bit about the association, its past and present membership; how it got started, and what its purposes are?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. I must be a little vague about the precise date because I had no contact with it at the time, but my recollection is that it was about 6 or 7 years ago that the comic book publishers, almost 90 percent of them, gathered together in the face of tightening storms of criticism and sought to band together to do something about it.

            They organized themselves into a I would presume you would call it ─ trade association of one kind or another, and under the leadership of a committee, formulated a code.

            Again I had no hand in that formulation. It was headed as I recall it, by George Hecht, one of the finer, better publishers in the industry, who publishes Parents magazine.

            I think as we look back, it was a sincere effort to bring some beginning of order out of chaos. Unfortunately, early in the operation of that association, some of the larger publishers left it and when I was approached ---

            Mr. BEASER. When you first started was it in 1948, 6 or 7 years ago?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. I suspect it is 1948 or 1947.

            Mr. BEASER. Were all the publishers members? Did they all join?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. I think almost without exception, there may have been 1 or 2 people who didn't attend those meetings, but as I understand it, and this is hearsay, 90 percent of the industry were members of that original organization that was formed.

            Mr. BEASER. Then the association adopted a code and it was after the adoption of the code that some members left; is that it?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. That is true, but I hasten to add if there is any inference in that that they left because of the code, that would be unfair to them.

            The people who left, some of them, are the finest publishers of comics in the industry; some of the largest ones. They left for a variety of reasons. Some of them felt that they should not be associated with some of the elements in the industry that they felt were publishing products inferior to theirs and there is also, in passing, a great deal of internecine warfare in this industry, a lot of old difficulties which mitigated a strong, well-knit attempt to organize.

            Mr. BEASER. Have you a copy of the code with you?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. No, I am sorry. I thought the committee had one.

            Mr. BEASER. We have one. I would like to offer this, Mr. Chairman.

            The CHAIRMAN. It will be received and marked for the record and incorporated in the record without objection. Let it be exhibit No. 9.

            (The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 9," and reads as follows:)

EXHIBIT No. 9

COMICS CODE ADOPTED BY PUBLISHERS

             NEW YORK, July 1.─ The Association of Comics Magazine Publishers today announces the adoption of a code of minimum editorial standards. The association is now conducting an intensive drive to secure the membership of all the comics magazine publishers in the United States and their pledge to abide by the comics code. The code will be sent to local societies, civic groups, and distributors of magazines.

             The association also announces that it is considering appointing a commissioner whose function it will be to survey the entire industry in the light of the comics code, and to suggest changes, if necessary, as well as to impose restrictions on those members of the association whose magazines do not adhere to the particulars of the comics code. Also under consideration is the adoption of a seal to be used on comics magazines, the contents of which meet the requirements of the comics code. The code reads as follows:

THE COMICS CODE

             The Association of Comics Magazine Publishers, realizing its responsibility to the millions of readers of comics magazines and to the public generally, urges its members and others to publish comics magazines containing only good, wholesome entertainment or education, and in no event include in any magazine comics that may in any way lower the moral standards of those who read them.

In particular:

             (1) Sexy, wanton comics should not be published. No drawing should show a female indecently or unduly exposed, and in no event more nude than in a bathing suit commonly worn in the United States of America.

             (2) Crime should not be presented in such a way as to throw sympathy against law and justice or to inspire others with the desire for imitation. No comics shall show the details and methods of a crime committed by a youth. Policemen, judges, Government officials, and respected institutions should not be portrayed as stupid or ineffective, or represented in such a way as to weaken respect for established authority.

             (3) No scenes of sadistic torture should be shown.

             (4) Vulgar and obscene language should never be used. Slang should be kept to a minimum and used only when essential to the story.

             (5) Divorce should not be treated humorously nor represented as glamorous or alluring.

             (6) Ridicule of or attack on any religious or racial group is never permissible.

             The association anticipates the support of all publishers in its effort to enforce the minimum editorial standards of the comics code. It is pointed out, however, that comics magazines are usually prepared at least 3 months before issues go on sale, so that practical application of the code may not be evident for a number of months.

             The comics magazine publishers who have already agreed to abide by the comics code, all of whom are not, however, members of the association, are: Premium Service Co., Inc., Famous Funnies, Inc., Hillman Periodicals, Inc., Parents' Institute, Inc., Lev Gleason Publications, Inc., McCombs Publications, Inc., The Golden Willow Press, Avon Periodicals, Inc., Ace Magazines, Orbit Publications, Inc., Superior Comics, Consolidated Magazines, Inc.

            Mr. BEASER. What is your present membership in this association?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. We have about a dozen members, only three of which are publishers, several distributors, some of the printers, and engravers.

            I say that our experience in continuing this organization has been a study in frustration. When I came into the picture some 6 or 7 years ago, we had one-third of the industry. Since that time there have been defections from that very substantially so that today unfortunately our association represents a very insignificant, small fraction of the industry, those few diehards who still believe that by some miracle the organization of their original premise, which was a program of self-regulation of comics, might yet come true.

            Unfortunately it has not happened.

            Mr. BEASER. You say there were defections. Do you have any who left because they were not abiding by the code?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. There were several resignations which were directly traceable to the fact that I, as a person of some responsibility in this, refused to approve certain magazines and these people felt they could not live under what they regarded as excessive, kind of narrow, restrictions.

            Mr. BEASER. You were enforcing the code, in other words?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. I tried to enforce it on a very practical level.

            Mr. BEASER. How many publishers were involved?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. In the defection?

            Mr. BEASER. Yes.

            Mr. SCHULTZ. I know of two publishers who left for that very specific reason. Others left without giving reasons. I can only guess what the motivation may have been.

            Mr. BEASER. Which were the two that had difficulty with respect to the code?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. One was the Educational Comics. It is now Entertainment Comics, the Gaines Publishing.

            The other was something called the Avon, and there, again, with the proliferation of corporations and names those names cover a variety of companies, I presume.

            Mr. BEASER. How do you operate, or how does the association operate now as contrasted with the past? Do you screen all the magazines or comics which bear your seal of approval?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. Originally when I was approached, the concept was to set up a counterpart of the motion-picture production code. We had what I still think were good ideas. We got together a committee of educators. We had the superintendent of schools here in New York; we had the State librarian, some others, as an advisory committee to sit in seminars with publishers and educators to raise the language content levels, and so on.

            We actually had a procedure. Some people we hired were actually reading the comics in the boards; that is, the raw state of the pasted-up kind of thing before it gets to the printer.

            When ─ I guess it is more than 3 years now, perhaps a little longer ─ the defections became so bad we could not afford to continue that kind of precensorship arrangement and that has been discarded. Today we do no self-regulation at all except as it may exist in the minds of the editors and they proceed in their daily work.

            Mr. BEASER. In other words, Mr. Schultz, the comic books, crime and horror comic books which today bear the seal of approval of the association, does not necessarily mean that anybody in the association has read them and actually approved of the comics?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. They do not. The association some 3 years ago ─ the few remaining members ─ adopted a provision in which they agreed they would do their own censoring, their own censorship at that point, and there is no longer that other process which I described.

            Mr. BEASER. Yet they still do bear the seal of approval?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. Yes, they bear the seal now, the concept being that in their judgment they conform to that code which has been made part of the record.

            Mr. BEASER. Now, in the enforcement of your code, or your regulations, whatever it is, have you any sanctions whatsoever?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. No; we have no sanctions.

            Mr. BEASER. In other words, the publisher who does not live up to your code just goes ahead?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. A publisher who was a member of the association who desired to have the seal on his publication, if he did not conform to the recommendations made, would be deprived of the right to use the seal.

            Mr. BEASER. I mean right now a person is a member of the association and puts out a magazine that bears the seal, there is no way, is there, in which your organization as a functioning organization takes action?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. We do no checking whatever, none whatever.

            Mr. BEASER. Were you here this morning, Mr. Schultz?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. Yes; I was, right from the very inception.

            Mr. BEASER. Did you see some of the exhibits?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. Yes; I did.

            Mr. BEASER. Would you say that the ones which showed crime, horror and terror, would conform to your articles on crime in the code and on sadistic torture which are forbidden under your code?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. Well, it is pretty hard to generalize. First of all, I would say when the code was adopted the weird kind of terror comics had not been in existence and the committee that formulated the code made no provision or reference to it whatever, so that it is hard to answer the question technically as to whether it conforms to the code.

            My difficulties, however, go beyond the technical. I certainly think they violate the spirit and intent of such code and was one of the reasons for the defections about which I spoke.

            Mr. BEASER. Would it, in your opinion, violate the provisions of that code which says that the objective of the code is to prohibit anything which in any way lowers the moral standards of those who read them?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. Now you are getting into an area in which I have very limited competence. I have a lot of experience and contact in the last 6 years with the whole body of the men who have studied the problem and I am as confused as I presume everybody else is about how to answer that question.

            My guess is that you will not get any eminent, sound, responsible psychiatrist who will make a definitive statement on that subject.

            Mr. BEASER. I was testing the exhibits against the code itself.

            Senator KEFAUVER. Mr. Chairman, if I may make a suggestion, this reads to me like a very excellent code that has been given a great deal of thought. If the publishers would follow this code, I do not think we would have this problem that we are talking about today. I know the code has been made a part of the record, but I would think, so that we would know what we are talking about, the paragraph having to do with that they recommend be published and what should not be published, ought to be read.

            The CHAIRMAN. I shall be very glad to have the counsel read that portion of the code.

            I, too, want to join in commending the association for that code. It is a good code and would do the trick if it were observed.

            Senator KEFAUVER. Counsel might read the whole thing. It is very short.

            The CHAIRMAN. Counsel, will you read the code?

            Mr. BEASER. This is something entitled "The Comics Code."

            (Mr. Beaser read "The Comics Code" which appears as "Exhibit No. 9" on p. 70.)

            The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

            Mr. BEASER. I have one more question. You have had some years of experience in representing comic-book publishers. In the sale and distribution of comic books, are the dealers at the local level required by either the wholesaler, the distributor, or the publisher in any way to carry crime and horror comic books?

             Mr. SCHULTZ. I would say the best answer I could give starts with the basis that all magazines, comic books, and all publications of every kind and variety are sold on a fully returnable basis. So you start with the concept that a dealer who feels the urge not to sell─

            Mr. BEASER. A dealer is the man on the street corner?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. A retailer. If the retailer desires to avoid selling any magazines, either which for political or social or religious or moral reasons offends his sensibilities, all he has to do is put them under the counter and return them for full credit.

            I would not say there are instances where a roadman representing the wholesaler or the distributor in New York, in an effort to perform his function, may not urge a dealer to display a comic horror book he might not want to, but there is no compulsion legally in any of the arrangements that I am aware of in the publishing industry.

            Mr. BEASER. Have you heard of compulsion in the form of either a publisher, wholesaler, or distributor saying to dealers that unless they carry crime and horror comics that they will not be given other, say, more salable magazines?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. I have not heard that, but I can imagine its happening for a different reason. It is very much, Mr. Beaser, like the automobile business where they have an agency and they would not like the agent to prefer to sell only the convertibles. They want him to have a full line.

            If a fat distributor, like the American News Co., that distributes 100 magazines, they prefer a wholesaler to carry their full franchise, all of their publications.

            I presume if the point was reached where a wholesaler, by refusing to accept publications, or returning, them without sale, got to the point where his franchise was ineffective and he was not doing a decent job for the individual distributor, he might remove the franchise and give it to somebody else.

            Mr. BEASER. In other words, there is the possibility, then, that if a particular dealer in a drugstore does not want to carry some of the crime and horror comics and keeps returning certain issues, that he may be refused the sale of other magazines by the wholesaler?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. I can't conceive it happening at the level of the retailer. I think it would be very remote.

            Mr. BEASER. It would be likely to happen then at the distributor - wholesaler level?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. It could happen at the distributor - wholesaler level, but I have never heard of its happening.

            Mr. HANNOCH. Have you not heard that it is so prevalent that it becomes necessary to pass statutes making it illegal to do that very thing?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. I know of the statutes that are in existence, Mr. Hannoch, I think they perhaps proceeded on a notion which is different from mine. That is, that there is some compulsion in the so-called tie-in sale.

            My own experience in this industry representing publishers for a quarter of a century, would seem to indicate to the contrary.

            Mr. BEASER. Do you think the statutes were passed in various States without any reason at all and not to cure an evil?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. I think that the statutes that were passed in Idaho ─ there is one in New York that has just been passed, and there was a suggestion of one in New Jersey ─ were passed as a result of a great deal of excitement and hysteria, in my judgment, about this whole problem of the impact of the mass media on juvenile delinquency.

            I think they proceed from an erroneous assumption that the tie-in sale is a part of the legal mechanism of the distribution business when in fact it is not.

            The CHAIRMAN. You do agree, Mr. Schultz, that if they would abide by this code, if the publishers did abide by this code which was read into the record, the trouble would be solved?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. I am sure 90 percent of the trouble would be removed.

            The CHAIRMAN. At least the dangers would have been eliminated; would they not?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. Yes, except for the dangers that come from if I may just expand on that phase of it ─ I would hate to feel I came down just to tell this story of frustration of the association without at least being given the privilege of saying one word about my own views of the impact of these comics on this problem.

            I have had the feeling from all I have seen and read, and I have had a great deal of contact with it, that there are people who, for motivations of their own, some very sincere, some, I think, insincere, have made of this comic-book issue a national scandal.

            I think it has been a disservice to the people. I think it has been a disservice to the whole problem that this committee is trying to grapple with, the problem of trying to find the basic impetus.

            The causes of juvenile delinquency are broad, that to do the thing that has happened so many times, which is to point to the easiest culprit and say it is the comic book that is responsible for all our difficulties, is a very dangerous thing.

            I am not talking now from the comic-book publishers standpoint. I think it detracts from the ability to understand the real basic cause of juvenile delinquency. I think it impedes intelligent investigation into those causes. It gratifies the feelings of parents and others that something is being done about it when everybody blames the mass media, comics or television or motion pictures.

            I would say from my talking with men who have devoted years to a study of this problem that they are all agreed that the tools which they have in psychiatry and sociology are still too blunt to enable the careful measurement of the kind of answer which might be indicated by Mr. Beaser's question.

            They are only beginning to feel their way into this area.

            The CHAIRMAN. You realize, of course, Mr. Schultz, that this subcommittee is only trying to shed a true light on this problem?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. I would hope, if I may make one plea in conclusion, that this committee, in the face of the larger scope of this problem, it is a serious, important, difficult problem, could do a great service in my judgment if it would, while excoriating the bad taste and the vulgarity sometimes bordering on obscenity, that occurs in these publications, I think many of the comic-book publishers have failed in their duty to mothers to take this great medium which was years ago a wonderful vital thing and they have debased it in many ways, I think they should be criticized for that.

            But I think the whole problem of comic books and their impact must be put in proper focus. How much of an impact all of the maps media can make on this problem and what little corner of it the comic book occupies is a very difficult measurement to make.

            You start with the Gluecks at Harvard, who have devoted years to this work, who tell us in their definitive book that just came out that a child's pattern of delinquency is fixed at the age of six. That is even before he is exposed to mass media.

            The CHAIRMAN. They have been before this subcommittee.

            Mr. SCHULTZ. I did not know they had. But you get an opportunity, I think, here in a report to point out that if there is an impact it is certainly a small part of the whole and I am hopeful we can lay the ghost once and for all of the continued excitement, the frightening impact on parents and people all over the country by a few people who go about frightening people out of their wits by telling them that all the youngsters in the Nation are being turned into little monsters by the comic-book industry, which I think is a lot of rubbish.

            Senator KEFAUVER. I think most of us will agree with you that there are dozens and dozens of factors, or contributing factors, in this problem, and the subcommittee has been going into various and sundry ones. I think you will agree it is proper that we do also consider and look at this horror and crime book problem.

            Mr. Schultz, how many do you have left in the association?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. We have about a dozen members, as I said, of which only three are publishers.

            Senator KEFAUVER. On this code here, you have Premium Service Co., Inc. Is that still a member?

            Mr.SCHULTZ. I don't recognize that name. It is not a member.

            Senator KEFAUVER. Famous Funnies?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. Famous Funnies which was the publishers of the first comic book that ever appeared, they are still members.

            Senator KEFAUVER. Hillman Periodicals, Inc.?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. They are not.

            Senator KEFAUVER. Parents' Institute, Inc.?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. They went out of business entirely.

            Senator KEFAUVER. Gleason Publications, Inc.?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. Is still a member.

            Senator KEFAUVER. McCombs Publications, Inc.?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. They went out of business.

            Senator KEFAUVER. Golden Willow Press?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. They are not.

            Senator KEFAUVER. Did they leave the association?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. I don't remember now, Senator, whether it demised or whether they left.

            Senator KEFAUVER. Avon Periodicals, Inc.?

            Mr.SCHULTZ. They left.

            Senator KEFAUVER. Ace Magazines?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. They left.

            Senator KEFAUVER. Orbit Publications, Inc.?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. They left.

            Senator KEFAUVER. They left?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. Yes, they left.

            Senator KEFAUVER. You seemed to say that with a smile. Does that have any significance?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. I don't remember the details of each one of these companies. Each one was an incident around a busy career on this problem, so they bring back all kinds of memories.

            Senator KEFAUVER. Superior Comics?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. Superior Comics, I believe, gave up business, although I really don't know.

            Seantor KEFAUVER. Consolidated Magazines, Inc.?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. They are no longer members.

            Senator KEFAUVER. I do not see Atlas in this group.

            Mr. SCHULTZ. Atlas was a more recently formed company since the formulation of that code and Atlas became a member about 2 years ago.

            Senator KEFAUVER. Is Atlas still a member?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. Yes, they are.

            Senator KEFAUVER. Now, Mr. Schultz, actually, in this association, how many employees do you have?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. I presume there are now two of us considered employees. We have a man who acts as general secretary and I am general counsel.

            Senator KEFAUVER. What is the budget of the association?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. We spend about $15,000 a year.

            Senator KEFAUVER. How many members do you have left in it?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. About 12.

            Senator KEFAUVER. So, that two part-time employees ─ you as general counsel, and one employee ─ you make no effort really to look over and see what they are publishing and you have no sanctions, so actually you admit that the association has just about gone out of business?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. Yes; we are now merely a reporting agency. We get up that little letter that comes out about once a month in which we collect all the clippings all over the Nation criticizing comics and pass that on to the industry. We call an occasional industry meeting to talk; about censorship, some of their problems, taxes, and things of that .kind, but to all intents and purposes we are out of business on our major objective, which was self-regulation.

            Senator KEFAUVER. As the regulator, or the Landis of the comic-book industry, if you were permitted to be, you certainly would not permit a lot of these things you see here this morning?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. I not only wouldn't, but I didn't and unfortunately they have left the association.

            Senator KEFAUVER. Refusal to go along with your ideas about it is the reason the association has only a few members left?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. That is not entirely true. The reason it has not succeeded, I think, is the failure or refusal of some of the larger and better publishers who, while they themselves do not publish comic books which might be in this category, did not recognize their responsibility to the total industry by staying with the organization in its inception and formulating practices and rules which would have become a bible for the industry.

            Senator KEFAUVER. Mr. Schultz, it would seem that in the beginning the publishers had pretty good judgment because this was started back in 1947, just about the time the horror and crime comics got underway; was it not?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. I don't believe the horror comics came in, Senator Kefauver, until about 3 or 4 years ago. That is my guess. I don't think the horror comics were at all in the picture; nobody knew anything about them when this code was formulated 7 years ago.

            The crime comics were in existence at that time.

            Senator KEFAUVER. The code seems to have reference to horror comics at that time. "No sense of sadistic torture should be shown," "and vulgar and obscene language should never be used."

            In any event, Mr. Schultz, it would seem to be unfortunate that this effort that started off so good was not carried on.

            Mr. SCHULTZ. Yes.

            Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you.

            The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hennings.

            Senator HENNINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

            You have a seal of approval, have you, Mr. Schultz?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. We did have. As I explained before, originally the concept was that the seal would only be permitted on publications which had gone through this self-regulatory process. It got to the point where we went out of business on that concept, and now the seal, I presume, means that the person who uses it is a member of the association and is conforming in his judgment to the code which was adopted.

            Senator HENNINGS. In other words, he would regulate himself and censor his own material and put the seal on?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. That is right.

            Senator HENNINGS. Mr. Hannoch, our counsel, has suggested that there is a seal on one of the exhibits.

            Mr. BEASER. It is that star, is it not, Mr. Schultz?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. Yes.

            Mr. HANNOCH. What does it say?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. I think it says "Conforms to the comics code."

            Senator KEFAUVER. What publication is that?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. I never saw that before.

            Mr. BEASER. It is one of the Atlas group.

            Senator KEFAUVER. I thought you said Atlas was not a member.

            Mr. SCHULTZ. I said Atlas became a member 2 years ago.

            Senator KEFAUVER. So you did; that is right.

            Senator HENNINGS. Is that seal protected by any copyright?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. No, and I have found on occasion it has been used improperly and we had to stop it. We had by remonstration to stop them, by writing a letter and urging them to stop it.

            Senator HENNINGS. You have no way of controlling the use of that seal?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. I think we might get an injunction.

            Senator HENNINGS. You might, but that would be quite a process. You would be unlikely to go through that as you are presently operating.

            Mr. SCHULTZ. I would think that if somebody used this seal who was not a member, improperly, that I could easily get authorization from the few diehards who are there to take the necessary action.

            Senator HENNINGS. But you have never done so?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. Never had to do it.

            Senator HENNINGS. Mr. Schultz, I am sure that we are all glad that you made the statement that you did that there has been, and various members of our subcommittee have from time to time in the course of these hearings, suggested our awareness of the fact, that there is no one single factor that is creating what is known as juvenile delinquency in this country.

            We have consistently, and I believe conscientiously, tried to avoid giving the impression or seeming to have arrived upon conclusions that would indicate that there is a panacea, there is a cure-all, a golden specific, if you do away with comic books we are not going to have any trouble with young people getting into trouble, or if you stop certain kinds of television programs or movies or even if you clear out all of the substandard dwelling places, or if you have hundreds of psychiatrists where you have one in certain institutions, or in certain agencies, or if you get everybody to go to the YMCA or to join the Boy Scouts or the Girl Scouts, you are not going to have any more trouble.

            I think we all have approached our problem here certainly with that basic premise that we do not expect to find that there is one thing or another thing.

            Many things are cumulative. Many things are incalculable and imponderable in this subject and I think the more we have seen of this during the past several months when we have been holding our hearings and reading upon the subject, the more we are keenly conscious of the fact that the ramifications and complexities of this are at times seemingly almost insupportable.

            But we are still trying and we did not come here in any effort, through sensationalism, by bringing people in to subject them to inquisitions, to make it appear that we necessarily believe that this particular phase of activity is or is not hurtful or a contributing factor.

            We just do not know. We are trying to learn.

            I, for one, appreciate the spirit in which you have come here today.

            Mr. SCHULTZ. Thank you, sir.

            The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Schultz, the Chair certainly appreciates the spirit of your testimony. You have been very helpful I think I speak for every member of the subcommittee when I say we are grateful.

            Senator KEFAUVER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one more question?

            The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kefauver.

            Senator KEFAUVER. Those who carry the seal of the code, do they advertise inside the magazine that they are complying with the code of the Comic Magazine Publishers Association?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. I know of no such specific advertisement, other than the impression of the seal itself on the cover.

            Senator KEFAUVER. How do people know what that seal means, then?

            Mr. SCHULTZ. I really don't know. Most of the publishers who are nonmembers develop seals of their own. You find a whole series of seals which say "Good clean reading," and everything else, so that the seal has lost its imprint and its value in many ways anyhow, except for somebody who takes the trouble to look very closely at that little legend that might have some meaning to it.

            Other than that I think it has no value.

            Senator KEFAUVER. Thank you very much.

            The CHAIRMAN. The subcommittee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon.

            (Thereupon, at 12 20 p. in., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p. m., same day.)