Moving Picture World (Apr-Jun 1917)

May 19, 1917 THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD 1097 priation of $25,000, has now asked for $30,000 additional out of which various bills will be met. The amount which ex-Senator Harvey Hinman, counsel for the Wheeler committee, will get for his services is not being noised about the Capitol. Members of the committee say that they do not know what Mr. Hinman is to be paid. Undoubtedly, some definite figure has been agreed upon by Senator Hinman and Assemblyman Wheeler, for the $7,200 is supposed to take care of all bills. It has come to light that there was a conference at Senator Mills' rooms a few nights ago at which Assemblyman Wheeler, Mr. Hinman, Senator Adon Brown and Senator Mills were among those present. It is understood that certain ones agreed to aid the Wheeler bill in getting out of committee and onto the floor if the license tax and the footage fees were materially reduced. After considerable discussion, this was agreed to. At the same time, it is said, that Senator Hinman informed those present as to the amount which he proposed to charge as counsel for the committee. That this is no small sum is generally conceded, for Senator Hinman is ef a type that likes to be well paid for his services, and the fact that $12,000 will be needed to meet the committee's expenses, which have been low along other lines, furnishes additional proof. WALKER PUSHES SUNDAY BILL ALONG. The Senate at Albany worked up to the Walker Sunday Motion Picture bill last Tuesday and then proceeded to quickly sidestep the issue for bills on which there were no controversies. When the Walker bill was reached cries of 'Tass it on," "Let it go over" and others sounded through the Chamber until it seemed that Senator James J. Walker was the only one present who was really ready to get down to business and have the fate of the bill settled, at least so far as the Legislature was concerned. Even if the Walker bill should pass at this stage of proceedings, it becomes a thirtyday bill and can be killed by the Governor during the next month. When the Walker bill advanced in the Senate a few days ago Senator Elon R. Brown, the Republican Majority Leader, who was against the bill in its original form, wanted to know if anyone had moved for its advancement. "Certain, it's moved," said Senator Walker, with much emphasis. "This bill is the most important measure on the calendar and, in fact, it is the real movie bill. A million people in this State demand the passage of this bill," continued Senator Walker. "They are chiefly the working people who have small chance to see the pictures except on Sundays." "In behalf of that million people the bill will be advanced," said Senator George Slater of Port Chester, who was presiding at the^time. "I'm with you," declared Senator Ogden L. Mills to Senator Walker. Freuler Discusses Proposed War Tax Believes It an Unjust Burden Upon the Motion Picture Industry—Ten Per Cent. Too High. ti/~TT~\ HE war tax measure now before Congress, proposing a tax of ten per cent, on tickets of admission for theaters, is in my opinion likely to work an unjust burden upon trie public and the picture industry," said President John R Freuler, of the Mutual Film Corporation, discussing war legislation at his Chicago office. "At the distance I am not sufficiently informed of the conceptions which actuate the statesmen who drafted this measure to analyze them with assurance. "It seems probable that they conceive the motion picture business to be infinitely more profitable than it really is in all its branches. I am sure that if they had the real truth before them they would find that a tax of ten per cent, is more than most picture theaters can bear and yet pay a reasonable profit. "It is my hope and understanding that the purpose of Congress is not to put anybody out of business, but simply to raise war revenue. That being true. I fear that the ten per cent, motion picture theater admission tax will fail of its' purpose, and at the same time strike a serious blow at the most wholesome, low priced popular pastime of the people. "I must again turn back to my often repeated declaration that the motion picture is simply a form of publication, an expression of the press, a form of thought transmission using pictures instead of printed words. It has long been a theory of the people of the United States that the press was an important public servant. Everything possible in the earlier history of our country was done to encourage a free press, to encourage the dissemination of news and information, as the part of the education of a free people. "I wish very much that this true view of the purposes and functions of the motion picture might be more forcefully borne into the minds of our legislators in all legislative bodies. I wish, too, that more of the members of our various judiciary factors of government might more clearly understand what this celluloid medium of expression really is. "It is too often argued that the motion picture is purely an entertainment — it is practically always so treated by the governments, city, state and national. It is no more entirely a medium of entertainment than the typical newspaper, with its funny columns, its comic cartoons and advice to the lovelorn. "The motion picture serves the people and their Government. It should not be a target for every "get the money" movement in state and nation. The picture's rights demand a degree of appreciation and conservation. "I am sure that I am as patriotic and sincerely in support of the government as any citizen may be, but I am sure that the government may well consider a somewhat lighter tax upon the motion picture theater, if proportionate justice is to be had." ."■ An Exhibitor's View Harry Crandall, of Washington, D. C, Says It Should be Paid by the Theater Patron. The futility of any attempt on the part of the exhibitors of the country endeavoring to defeat the tax to be imposed upon moving picture exhibitions in common with all other amusements is pointed out by Harry M. Crandall, of Washington, D. C, one of the best posted motion picture men in this section. "Amusements cannot very well be considered necessities," said Mr. Crandall to the Washington correspondent of the Moving Picture World, "and those who operate them must expect to pay a tax, in this case perhaps a heavier one than would otherwise be looked for, when the members of Congress are looking all over the field of activity to find the things the taxation of which will not bring about hardship. Now, according to my way of looking at it, and as the tax now seems inevitable, I think the exhibitors should all look upon it as being a proper move on the part of Congress, providing that they place the tax where it belongs — upon those who seek the amusement, not upon those who dispense it. "To place a tax of ten per cent, on the gross receipts of the theaters upon the exhibitors would be a hardship that large members of them could not survive in a business way. There are so many now that do not make so large a percentage out of their business, and there are others that operate at a loss for considerable periods of time, of course later catching up, or they would not remain in business. To place a burdensome tax upon these would indeed be a hardship for them. "The Government does not want to close up any theaters; to do so would simply have the effect of lessening the revenue to be derived from this source. If it is absolutely necessary to impose this tax then there is only one way to do so and guarantee the existence of the theaters. As will be remembered, during the Spanish-American War every check written by a business man or other individual had to have attached to it a revenue stamp before the check could be cashed. There was then written into the law a clause providing that these stamps had to be affixed by the maker of the check, and it was illegal for the banks to assume the expense of the tax. The motive for doing this was that if the banks were allowed to pay for the stamps, many of the smaller ones might find their overhead charges so great as to prevent them from operating at a profit, while, on the other hand, to attempt to make their customers bear the burden would result in discrimination against such banks, for these customers would immediately withdraw their patronage to the more prosperous institutions. "Now," continued Mr. Crandall, "the same conditions will prevail at this time with respect to the theaters as prevailed in the case of the banks in 1898. If the stamp tax remains with the exhibitors to absorb there will be many of them driven from the field, if the amount of the tax is anywhere near ten per cent., for they now have to pay about all the taxes that the business will stand. If the exhibitors find it optional with them as to whether they or the public shall pay for the stamps the same results practically will obtain. My recommendation to Congress, should I get an opportunity to state my views, would be to adopt in connection with any