Harrison's Reports (1945)

116 HARRISON'S REPORTS July 21, 1945 from their prior-run competitor, no matter how stiff the terms. Paying exhorbitant film rentals for the privilege of buying product away from a stronger competitor is, at best, only a temporary advantage, and frequently a costly one. In the long run, such action is definitely harmful, for it serves to defeat the independent exhibitors' constant fight tor "live-and let-live" rental terms. Here is an opportunity for the independent exhibitors to make known to the distributors their determination to bring film prices down. Don't rush to buy just because a distributor decides to sell away from your powerful competitor, unless, of course, the terms arc such as would leave you with a fair profit. Follow the lead of the circuits -hold out! Only then will the distributors be made to realize that rental terms must be brought down to an equitable level. RESTRICTING TRAVELING CARNIVALS During the past week, two exhibitors, each from a different part of the country, have written to me on the same subject — traveling carnivals that stop in their respective towns annually, affecting the attendance at their theatres to a considerable degree. One of these exhibitors points out that these carnivals are permitted to operate within the limits of his town for a nominal license fee, and that, through low class side-shows, as well as gambling devices, they take out of the town thousands of dollars. Yet the small license fee paid by the carnival's operators is far from enough to reimburse the town for the police and fire protection provided during the carnival's stay, let alone the inestimable expense to the town in handling criminal violations bred by the carnival's operations. This same exhibitor adds that those who suffer most from the traveling shows are the town's legitimate merchants and business men, who have thousands of dollars invested in different enterprises, and who help in a large measure to support the town through their payment of different forms of taxes and of license fees. The other exhibitor, whose complaint is along the same lines as the first one, has asked me if I have knowledge of an ordinance that has been passed by any City Council, which, in effect, would impose a discouraging license fee, as well as limit the number of days a carnival may operate in a town. A check of my file on the subject discloses that such an ordinance was brought to my attention in 1935, except that it does not place a limitation on the number of days a carnival may operate. The license fee, however, is discouraging enough to make an extended stay unprofitable. The ordinance, which follows, comes from a town of about fifteen thousand population, in the state of Ohio, but I am suppressing the name of the city because, at the time the ordinance was submitted to me, the City Clerk requested that I do so : "AN ORDINANCE TO REGULATE AND LICENSE CARNIVALS. "Be it ordained by the City Council of , State of Ohio. "That any person, persons, firm or corporation being the owner, manager or proprietor of any traveling carnival or part thereof consisting of two or more shows, exhibitions or other services of public entertainment, before engaging in said business in the City of , Ohio, shall pay to the Mayor of said City three hundred dollars ($300. 00) for the first day said business is conducted and three hundred dollars ($300.00) for each additional day said business is conducted in said City, and said sum shall be payable for the use of said City for the purchasing of regulating said business in said City. "Any person, persons, firm or corporation violating any of the provisions of this ordinance, or failing to pay the license required by the terms of this ordinance, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than five hundred dollars ($500.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1000.00)." From other correspondence in my file, I note that sever.il towns in Texas have passed ordinances to the effect that tent shows or carnivals using tents are considered a fire hazard and, as such, are not permitted to operate within the town's limits. Such ordinances, of course, tend to eliminate the undesirable competition insofar as the exhibitor is concerned, for, as a rule, the carnival's operators do not like to pitch their tents at a spot that is too distant from the main business center. The strongest argument an exhibitor can advance to induce his City Council to pass an ordinance making carnival license fees discouraging is that the police and fire protection required for such shows are costly to the city. If your city or state has any ordinance covering carnivals or any other type of traveling shows, send a copy to this office, so that I may pass the information along to other exhibitors. REASSURING NEWS Boxoffice reports that Tom C. Clark, in outlining his policy as the new Attorney General, and in discussing the anti-trust laws, stated in a recent interview that "the spirit of the antitrust laws is intimately linked with the values which the free peoples of the world are fighting to maintain. American business, large or small, has nothing to fear from the Department of Justice so long as it operates by the rules; but those who get off-side must prepare to have the whistle blown on them and to pay the penalty . . . I shall be the people's lawyer — the people's lawyer to see that the innocent are protected, the guilty punished, monopoly trusts and restraints in interstate business prevented, the public purse guarded, civil liberty preserved and constitutional guarantees held inviolate." Boxoffice reports also that the Government's antitrust action against the major companies looms important on Clark's agenda, and that he emphasized his determination to fight current anti-trust suits "all the way." If any of you has had any misgivings about how the new Attorney General feels about the forthcoming anti-trust trial in October, his statements should indeed be reassuring.