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 PICTUEE COMMISSION. 93 Even the film Quo Viidis has been attacked by some people. Critics, newspaper editors, magazine editors, educators, everyone who saw Quo Vadis was unanimous in the opinion that it was a wonderful film in every respect—educationally and morally; but some attacked it because of the scene showing the wine drinking, claiming that such a scene Avould have a bad effect on children who might see an exhibtion of the film. Taking up the subject from another standpoint. Let us for a moment consider moving pictures as analogous to book publishing. Who would be heard to say that there should be censorship of books; that is, a book should first be presented to a board of censors before it could be published ? That is not done. There are laws that pro- vide in the case of a publication of a book that is highly immoral, the author and publisher are liable to punishment under the law. Mr. Towner. The National Government has a censorship of that kind now? Mr. ScpiECHTER. They do not censor first—before the book is pub- lished. Mr. Tow^NER. Eecently, in a very notable instance in New York, in the case of a certain magazine which was about to be published, con- taining a certain type of picture on the outside, did they not prohibit sending it through the m.ails? Did they not make them, before they would let the book go out. make them take off the covers ? Mr. ScHECHTER. But the books are first published and Mr. ToAVNER (interposing). Of course they were first published, but they did not allow them to go through the mails. Mr. ScHECHTER. As to the Government mails—that is an entirely different thing. The Government controls the mails Mr. Towner (interposing). My question was directed to the inquiry as to whether or not that Avas censorship. Mr. ScHEGHTER. I do uot consider that to be a form of censorship. Mr. Towner. You would not consider that as a form of censorship? Mr. Schechter. No, sir; because the Government has the absolute power to say that one shall or shall not transfer a certain article through the mails. The Government has the absolute power to say what it will or will not transfer through that medium. You gentlemen, of course, are familiar with the law that the privi- lege of the mails may be withdrawn from anybody who does not carry out the instructions of the officials of the Post Office Depart- ment, and that I believe was the fact in the case which you men- tioned, althousjh I am not fully conversant with it. Now, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I want to say just a word as to the persons interested in the moving-picture business, and whether these men who are financially interested in it would, with knowledge or intention, produce immoral pictures. There is Mr. Kennedy, of the General Film Co., who was an engineer by profession before he became interested in the moving-picture business. Then, there is Thomas A. Edison, who is known as a moralist of the highest degree. Then, there is Mr. Carl Laemmle., president of the Universal Film Manufacturing Co., a successful merchant before his entry into the film business. There is Mr. Cochrane, a very successful advertising man, who ran the Cochrane Advertising Agency in Chicago before he engaged in the motion-picture business. There is Mr. Patrick A. 44072—No. 2—14——3