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)

MOTION" PICTURE COMMISSION. 31 My opponent's attempt to tnrn the uiad-doj;; argument against me fails, because I do not advocate that all motion pictures shall be inspected, but only those which are to be shown in licensed places of amusement for pay. It is the same as is done if a dog is admitted in a prize show contest. He can not be enteied nor receive the prize until he has been examineil and found not only free from disease, but also otherwise lit to enter the show. In saying the closing words of this debate, I thank the editor of this magazine and my opponent for their courtesy to me. I am glad to recognize the sincerity of my opponent's convictions and to count him as my friend. I leave the matter now to the [tnblic and to the legislation of our country. I would like to say that in 1907 there was a great protest against the immoral motion pictures which were shown in the city of New York, and as a result of one of the largest hearings ever held in the city hall there the motion-picture interests got together and arranged for what is called now the National Board of Censorship. They claim that they examine to-day 85 per cent of the films which are shown throughout the country. That is an unofficial board of cen- sorship and it is not a board of censorship; it is a deception upon the public, but the public, when they go into a show and see, as they do, "Approved by the National Board of Censorship," have the impres- sion that there is such a thing going on in the country. The ex- penses of this National Board of Censorship are paid by the motion- picture interests themselves, but they have no poAver to enforce their provisions, and the result is seen in that Chicago, which has a local censorship board, has rejected 3 per cent of the films which are brought there to show. Cleveland, vvdiich has a local censorship board, cast out 15 per cent of the pictures brought there. Mr. Crafts. That is, having this indorsement? Mr. Chase. Yes; 15 per cent, most of which have the indorsement of this National Board of Censor.ship. And it is to be noticed that they would not bring the worst pictures there because they know of this censorship provision. So the worst pictures naturally dodge Cleveland and Cleveland is protected. But of those that are actually brought there 15 per cent, most of which are inspected by this Na- tional Board of Censorship, are rejected as being immoral. The fact that four States have State boards of censorship indicates that there is a widespred conviction that the exhibition of pictures which are shown to-day in this country is not satisfactory. Now, as a sort of encouragement, and as an illustration of the situation, I want to call your attention to this fact, that after the fullest discussion in the city of New York the board of aldermen there passed a local board of censorship law and ordinance by a vote of 70 to 1, and when Mayor Gaynor held a hearing as to whether he should sign it or not Judge Philbin appeared there with a letter from Cardinal Farley urging that the mayor sign the bill. The representatives of the teachers' association, of the federation of churches, and of the variou.-? interest!? of the city of New York made a great request that Mayor Gaynor sign the bill, but he vetoed it on the ground that it was opposed to the ccnstitulional provision for the freedom of the press. Ohio is now having a case conducted before the courts. It is a United States district court of three, and the question is as to whether censorship is contrary to the freedom of the press, and so those lawyers of you will be interested in that contention. Now, the Ohio law provides that no picture shall be shown in the State of Ohio unless it is properly licensed or has passed