We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
MOTION PICTURE COMMISSION. 49 ever, and never have boon. I am looking at it merely as an American citizen, as one of the millions of American citizens in this coimtry. ]\[r. TowNEK. Yon Cfune liere in the interest of the film makers? Mr. Bush. I have come here in snpport of my convictions before this committee; that is trne. Mr. Towner. Well, it does not make any difference how you come or whom you represent. What do you think t)f the proposition that I have put before you ? Mr. Bush. I think this, in a few woi'ds: In the first place, T do not believe that Congress under its delegated powers would have the fight to assume coutrol of the subject matter in tliis bill at all. IVIr. TowNEi;. That is another question. I left that out of con- sideration. jMr. Busii. Well, I waive that for the moment. But I do say thist, that admitting for the sake of the argument that the Federal au- thorities have jurisdiction, why. I am sure a very tyro in political history knows that the States clo not lose their control over the mat- ter of censorship because Congress enacts a law dealing w^ith the same question. The State and the Nation exercise concurrent jurisdiction if this bill becomes a law. That is not subject to doubt. Mr. Towner. Are you sure about that? You say it is not subject to doubt. Mr. Powers. I was going to suggest. Judge, that this national cen.sorship will not prevent any of these States, counnunities. or cities froui having their own censorsliijis. and it might be in one locality one way and in another another way. We would simply have a double censorship if Ave had a Jiational censorship. Mr. Toavner. I think that is by no mean true. ]Mr. Powers. I think there is lio doubt about that proposition. Mr. TowNEi:. Have you considered it thoroughly? Mr. Powers. I certainly liave, about the jurisdiction of the States Mr. Fess. Now, the State of Ohio has an insolvency act. Do yon mean that because they have an insolvency law the National Govern- ment can not make a bankruptcy law? ]\fr. Powders. The National Government can only go so far as to control things moving from one State to another. So far as censor- ship in the individual States and in the individual localities is con- cerned they have a right to pass any law they want, so far as they do not interfere with the interstate features of the Federal law. Mr. Bush. Exactly, and at this moment there are two St;'.tes that have enacted censorship laws, and they are enforcing those laws every day. Mr. Powers. There is no doubt about that. Mr. Bush. Now, is it to be conceived that by the passage of this bill all those individual State laws would be abrogated ? Mr. Thacher. What are the names of those two States that you mentioned ? Mr. Bush. Pennsylvania and Ohio. Mr. Thacher. And California? Mr. Bush. Not a State censorship. It has, I believe, various mu- nicipal censorships, but these are State censorships. In these cases it has been distinctly held that the State censorship does not do away 44072—No. 1—14 4