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)

58 MOTION PICTURE COMMISSION. Mr. Towner. How are they supported? Dr. Carter. I am glad this question is asked me. They are sup- ported by the manufacturing companies, and I want to say that the manufacturing companies realize that it is for their best interest to have a censorship, and I have statistics to prove it. They pay only part of the salaries and the rest is paid by voluntary subscription sent in by the board and the People's Institute. Mr. Fess. It is understood that in our questions we are only seek- ing information. Would there be any ground for stating that the censorship might not be adverse to the producers because they employ the censors? Dr. Carter. No. I would be very glad to give you some state- ment in that regard, although it will take me out of the regular cur- rent of my remarks. I have no prepared statement here, but I am discussing the matter extemporaneously. I have here our report for 1914, which shows you the operation of this board in detail. It is a typewritten report; the report has not yet been printed. Last year we condemned in toto 53,000 feet of film. There were 53 sub- jects condemned. The average number of feet for each film, ac- cording to the estimate of the board, was 1,200 feet, but it is really supposed to be about 1,000 feet. Mr. Powers. What per cent of the entire production did you destrov? Dr. Carter. Now it might be a good place to bring this thing out, although I did not intend to bring it out at this time. This is from an advance copy of the printed report that will be issued soon, cover- ino- the period "from January 1, 1913, to January 1. 1914. The total number of reels first inspected was 7,066. The total number of reels, including reinspection, was 7,576. The total number of film subjects inspected was 5,740. Of course, you realize that the dif- ference in these numbers is accounted for by the fact that the subject may go over 1,000 feet. It is supposed to be 1,000 feet for each subject, but the average is 1,231 feet for the reels set before us. The total number of feet of sample copies inspected was 8,698.246. The average copy contained 1,231 feet. Then the number of subjects condemned "in toto was 53. The number of sample copies from which eliminations were made was 401. The number of feet elimi- nated from sample copies afterwards approved was 12,030. The average number of feet eliminated in each sample copy was 30 feet. The cost to the maniifactiii-ers of negatives destroyed was$115,909.50. They voluntarily submitted themselves to us. and there is no ap- peal from our decision, save wlion they want to get out of the ar- rangement. I wouUl be glad to answer the question asked by the gentleman here whether the sign, "Approved by the National Board of Cen- sors," has been put on a filui if it has not been approved. I will say that it has not, because if that was done the manager would be thrown out of the arrangement, and he would not be able to have that imprimatur upon which he counts for his business. Now, the total number of feet eliminated from sample copies, in- cluding films condemned in toto, was 77,273. The cost to manu- facturers of negatives destroved was $115,909.50. The cost to manu- facturers of sample fihns destroyed was $3,090.92. The sample film