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.
MOTION PICTURE COMMISSION. 133 The manufacturer of the bad fihn is the one who sliouid be pun- ished. The proposed bill brings the punishment where it belongs. If the film is denied a license by the connnission, the manufacturer meets with a financial loss, which is just. In the past the exhibitor has not been allowed to select the pictures which he is to exhibit. He has taken pictures which have {)een sent to him by an exchange. He is not responsible for the picture. He has entered into a business arrangement by which pictures are to be furnished to him. He has four or five films come to him each day. Now, is it the right thing to summon him before a court and con- vict him of exposing an immoral picture? Is it not better to require that the picture, after it is published, be submitted for inspection if it IS to be used for interstate commerce or for commer«jial pur- poses and then, if it is according to the law, if it has nothing in it that is contrary to the law-, have it licensed by the Federal motion- picture commission ? I said that the word "censorship" was not a proper word to use ]n this connection, because the authority granted by this bill is not an arbitrary power. There is always the power of appeal for court review. This has just occurred in Chicago. Mayor Funkhouser gave a decision with reference to a film entitled " Madame X." The owners or exhibitors objected to his decision and the matter was taken to court and a certain judge has granted the injunction and said that in his opinion "Madame X" ought to be shown in Chicago. The decisions and actions of this Federal connnission would always be subject to review by the judges of the courts. Mr. PowEiiS. What is there in the bill that would give the Federal courts the power to review or reverse or affirm any decisit)n of this commission ? Dr. Chase. There is nothing in the bill. Originally it was put in the bill, but w^as found to be surplusage, I think I am right in saying, and that the legal usaae makes it absolutely unnecessary to put it in the bill. Mr. PowEns. Have you anything directly on that point? Dr. Chase. Xo. sir; that point is not there. jNIr. Powers. Have you any decisions of the courts or any legal authority to sustain you statement that the courts will have the power to review the findings of this commission ? Dr. Chase. I think I could do that very quickly an.l report, if it is desired. jNIr. PowEiis. I am asking for information. Dr. Chase. I have not. because I thought it wa- so un<lisputed. T would like to ask Judge Towner if I am right about that. Mr. Towner. I think you are. Mr. Powers. Unless there is something in this l)ill which gives some higher court the power to review the findings of the commis- sion, that is not so clear in my mind. Dr. Chase. I put it in the bill originally, and we had quite a dis- cussion betAveen members of the committee, ^Ir. Hughes and Mr. Fort, and we finally thought that it was unnecessary. Mr. Towner. I Avould like to remind you not to forget the sugges- tion I made the other day. I would like to have you discuss that at some time when it suits your convenience.