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)

12 MOTION PICTURE COMMISSION. because the_y know he ahvaj^s brings them the facts. I am sure he ■will illuminate this subject and be able to answer almost any ques- tion. He has just been writing on the subject in the Motion "Picture Magazine, and has given it very large study. The Chairman. ]Mr. Chase, the committee will be very glad to hear from you. STATEMENT OE REV, V7ILLIAM SHEAFE CHASE. RECTOR OF CHRIST CHURCH, BEDFORD AVENUE, BROOKLYN, N. Y. Mr. Chase. I Avould like to submit three numbers of the Motion Picture Story Magazine, which contain the debate conducted between the president of the General Film Co. (Inc.) and myself upon the question of censorship. These magazines show what he has said and what T have said. These will give his views in opposition to mine, month by month, and you get an idea of both sides of the situation. He has since been superseded by somebody else, but when those arti- cles began he was the president of that company. (The articles referred to by Mr. Chase follow:) [February, 1014, of Motion Picture Storj- Magazine.] The Great Debate: Shall the Plays be Censored? DOES censorship ASSURE BETTER PLAYS, OR IS IT BESET WITH DANGERS?—PROMISE OR MENACE? Affirmative, Pvev. William Sheafe Chase, D. D., Rector of Christ Church, Bed- ford Avenue, Brooklyn. Negative. Frank L. Dyer. President of General Film Co. (Inc.). Editorial Note. —There is. perhaps, no question before the public so important and perplexing as the censorship question. In every country, in every State in the Union, and in alniost every city and hamlet, the subject is pressing for solution. Debating societies everywhere have discussed it. churches and civic societies have demanded it, newspapers and magazines have expressed opinions for and against it, the police authorities have been lu-ged to adopt it, while the film manufacturers, exhibitors, and the amusement world are apparently divided on the subject. What is the solution? Is the present national board of censors in;i(le(piate? Shall there be otiicial censorship? Shall the iiolice, or the church, or the State, or city authorities be given the right to censor all plays? Or shall all censorship be abolished, and shall the public themseves be the sole .judges of what jilays shall be exliibited and ot what shall not? Is it rigid that "a few persons shall determine wh.-it you and I shall have for our amusements, and if so. who are those jiersons :ind whence their right? And, on the other Land, shall the theaters be permitted to exhibit indecent plays, if they wish, to corrupt the morals of the public? And wmII they, in the absence of censor- ship? These are some of the many questions that must be answered, and we have secui'od the services of two of the ablest and most representative men in America to discuss the subject -Canon Chase and President Dyer. Canon Chase has long been before the public as an advocate of various civic improvements and moral uprightness, and has had wide experience. Mr. Dyer was for years the attorney for and president of the allied Thomas A. Edison interests. Per- haps nothing more need be said of his ability and experience, but when it is noted that he is an author of recognized merit and is now president of the General Film Co., it is apparent that he is well equipped to conduct his side of this debate. Thus we are able to introduce to our readers two experts and authorities on the subject of censorship, and we may confidently expect them to give ns the "last wcu'd " pro and con. In this issue Canon Chase opens the debate with many convincing arguments in favor of n more complete and rigid censorship, and Mr. Dyer sets forth his side of the controversy in a manner that must cause even those who differ with him to pause and reconsider. In the March number of this magazine Canon Chase will reply to Mr. Dyer, adding