Memorandum for His Excellency, the Governor of New York, in opposition to an act entitled "To regulate the exhibition of motion pictures, creating a commission therefor, and making an appropriation therefor." (1921)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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.

Memorandum for His Excellency, the Governor of New York, in Opposition to An Act Entitled "To Regulate the Exhibition of Motion Pictures, Creating 1 a Commission There- for, and Making* an Appro- priation Therefor/ 9 The Governor is not part of the legislature, but he is constituted as a possible check or restraint upon legisla- tion. People vs. Morton, 156 N. Y., 136. This Act must be presented for his approval. This Act cannot become a statute unless he sign it. At the hearing the Governor stated precisely the ques- tion now before him —"Is this legislation wise or un- wise?" This question admits discussion of (A) The nature of the legislation; (B) The wisdom of legislation of such nature in this instance; and (C) The wisdom of the scheme of the Act itself. And unless there be crisis or emergency in the affairs of the commonwealth that requires instant action by legislation, it is germane to consider whether this Act as a statute may be subject to sound judicial objection. We were told at the hearing that the Supreme Court had decided (236 U. S. 230) that censorship over mov- ing pictures was lawful, as if that foreclosed discussion. With due deference I submit that the basis of the deci- sion made upon the Ohio statute is that the moving pic- ture enterprise is a business. The inference that there- fore it should be censored would apply to a newspaper, to a book, or to a drama—all business enterprises.