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.

8 they deem necessary and shall make each deputy a cen- sor. The only necessary limit on the number of censor- appointed censors may be that of the appropriation. If any deputy is required and appointed he must be a cen- sor. ' * Shall be vested by the commission,'' is the phrase. Delegatus non potcst delegare. DISCUSSION OF LICENSE AND PERMIT AND PARTICULARLY OF SECTION 7. It is plain that the scheme of the Act contemplates a license or a permit for every film. (Sees. 5 and 6 and 12.) Sec. 5 relates to licenses; Sec. 6 to permits. Permits are of three kinds, (a) "used films", (b) current event films, (c) scientific and educational films,and films in- tended solely for "educational, charitable or religious purposes" (Sec. 6). It seems that for the kind last specified no fee is charged (Line 16, Sec. 6). For the other permits a fee is charged (Sec. 8). A permit vali- dates a film as much as a license, the difference is in the character of the film. Sec. 7 provides that any permit may be revoked by the commission five days after notice in writing is mailed to the applicant named in the petition. Nothing could be more arbitrary. There is no provision for hearing, no ground presented for the revocation, no requirement for statement of reasons for revocation even in the notice. And there is no provision for review even by the full commission as prescribed for licenses in Sec. 10, and there is no provision for legal scrutiny or review by cer- tiorari as prescribed for licenses by Sec. 10, and successive revocation is permitted. It cannot be contended that Sec. 10 affords any review for per- mits. For it is expressly limited to a license. And plainly enough "license" is not generic so as to cover permits for the Act repeatedly distinguishes license and