Motion Picture Commission : hearings before the Committee on Education, House of Representatives, Sixty-third Congress, second session, on bills to establish a Federal Motion Picture Commission (1978)

160 MOTION PICTURE COMMISSION. The following is taken from Bulletin No. 31. issued by the Society for the Prevention of Crime, 50 Union Square. New York City, issued June 16, 1913: The absolute need of :iii official censorship for motion pictures in New York City is made clear by the efforts of Mr. Arthur Saunders, editor of the Moving Picture News. oO West Thirteenth Street. N-'w York City, to have a certain degrading film forbidden to be exhibited in New York City. This film depicts Jack Rose, Sam Schepps, and Harry Vallon, notorious gamblers connected with the murder of Rosenthal. Mr. Saunders attempted to make his objection to the film in person to Mayor Gaynor. and failing to do so told his errand to the mayor's clerk. On May 28 he wrote his objections to the picture to Mayor Gaynor. Later he called the attention of Mr. Wallace, the head of the bureau of licenses, and asked to have the picture suppressed. He also made an appeal to the so-called National Hoard of Censorship to suppress the picture. The Society for the Prevention of Crime wrote Mr. Wallace, the head of the bureau of licenses, and offered aid in suppressing the picture. Dr. Frederic C. Howe, director of the People's Institute and chairman of the so-called National Board of Censors, gave his reasons why the board approved this bad film in an account of an interview furnished by John Collier, general secretary of the board, as follows: " The film. The Wages of Sin, was passed by our board as being an ordinary, harmless melodrama. There was nothing either in the titles or scenes to suggest crime or to degrate moral standards. There was no portrayal of the details of crime in any way that could be either attractive or imitated. "All mention whatever of Messrs. Rose, VaUon. and Schepps was eliminated from the main title and subtitles before the board approved the film. The board did not consider that it had any right to prohibit these men from going on the film stage, but it had a right to prevent the morbid exploitation of these men's reputation. The board's control does not go beyond the tilm. The way it is advertised, the kind of posters or verbal advertising which the ex- hibitor gives the tilm, is outside the board's jurisdiction, and within the juris- diction of the local police authorites anywhere in the country. The l)oard has frequently called attention to the need for local regulation of posters and adver- tising, but has never been ;'.ble itself to undertake local regulation. "It is worth mentioning that Rose, ^■allon, and Schepps were not convicted of crime; but even if they had been and had gone to the i>euitentiary, this board would not have felt justified in forbidding them to go on the film stage. As stated above, the board is concerned with the mor.-il effect of motion pictures. not with the moral character of the people who produce motion pictures or act In them. " Some years ago the board condemned a tilm in which Heulah liinford was featured. This film exploited the name of Beulah P.inford in its titles and was In fact a dramatization of her own life history, or part of it. In the present case the facts are reversed. The film, as passed by this board, makes no men- tion of Rose. Vallon. or Schei)ps. .-nid does not pretend to dramatize the facts of their life in any way. " Before anyone condenms the board for action on this tilm. he ought to take the trouble to see it." The result of this confused reasoning and method was seen in the picture as shown on June 10 and 11 in the Comedy Theater. Fourteenth Street and Union Square, and at Kessler's on June 16 and 17. After the title of the film was shown, the face of Jack Rose bowing upon the screen .md his name in full just imderneath. In a similar way the bowing heads and names of Sam Schepps, and Harry Vallon appeared. The names of the gangsters appeared in the sub- titles from time to time, while in front of the theaters were great flaring advertisements giving the title of the film and the pictures and names of the gamblers. CENSORSHIP hoard's DEFENSE SOPHISTICAL. The inability of the present so-called national board to protect the public from immoral pictures Is shown by considering the nature of Dr. Howe's expla- nation of their action in this case. His lame and technical efl'ort lacks the ring of moral Justification. A. The board was morally certain that the names of the notorious gamblers would be shown wherever the picture was exhibited. They ought to know