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.
144 MOTION PICTURE COMMISSION. when they go out." It seems to me that there ought to be some little office fee in order to pay for that trouble and to keep the necessary records. Mr. Towner. The fee should be made a charge for the certificate and not a charge for the license? Dr. Chase. Yes, sir. Mr. Tow:ner. Of course, as it stands now it is a charge for the license ? Dr. Chase. The certificate is evidence of the license, is it not? Mr. Towner. I do not know. Of course, the issuance of the license would be one thing and a certificate of it would be another. This is different from anything else, because the duplicates are so much more numerous than the originals. Dr. Chase. Yes, sir. Mr. Towner. My judgment is that there should be a certificate fee and not a license fee. Dr. Chase. The question of the unconstitutionality of the bill I want to consider for a few moments. The one decision of the three United States district judges in the Ohio censorship case ought to encourage you, if you have any impression that this act is uncon- stitutional. Mr. Towner. Separate district judges? Dr. Chase. Three United States district judges. Mr. Towner. Do you not mean the circuit court of appeals? Mr. Schechter. Yes, sir; the circuit court of appeals. Dr. Chase. Under the authority of a recent act of Congress allow- ing them to sit where cases arise between States. Mr. Towner. The circuit court of appeals? Dr. Chase. Yes, sir. Mr. Powers. Three of the district judges sitting together? Dr. Chase. Yes, sir; they sat and heard this matter and heard all the arguments proposed here, and unanimously decided that the Ohio law was constitutional. Mr. Powers. That is different from this? Dr. Chase. That is wliat I want to sj)eak about. This proposed law will be constitutional even if the judges of the Supreme Court should reverse the circuit court judges, for the reason that the Ohio law goes further than this bill and forbids the sale or exhibition of any motion picture anywhere in the State of Ohio. That is not the requirement of this proposed law. It does not forbid the sale or exhibition of a picture, and I never in any of the work that I have done have advocated such a law as that in the State of Ohio. It seems to me that what is required in this proposed bill is analogous to the case of a minister by the name of Davis who undertook to speak on the Boston Common without permission from the mayor or the board of aldermen. This bill forbids the carrying of pictures in certain places unless a certain permission is granted. The min- ister was arrested and he went to jail and stayed in jail. He thought that he was contending for the right of free speech, and i-efused to ask for the permit, w'hich would have been freely granted him. The question was carried to the higher courts, and finally the highest court decided that the city ordinance was not an abridgment of the right of free speech, but merely a requirement that he should con-