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)

186 MOTION PICTUKE COMMISSION. the story, and also of a film of an automobile that had skidded over a cliff, showing the occupants all torn to pieces in the valley below. That last scene was cut out in San Francisco. Many rejected films have been described in recent issues of the Northwestern Christian Advocate and the Literary Digest, in these last two cases with photo- engravings. Most of these rejected films show details of crime. Those objectionable films had in most cases passed the National Board of Censorship. If there is an adequate national censorship, such as this bill pro- poses^ we may still need local supervision of motion-picture shows as to matters of health and to see that the law is enforced; there will probably be little, if any, local censorsing of pictures, because that Work will be authoritatively and effectively done by the national board. Effective censorship would cost as much for one State as for all in one Federal board. The same pictures that go to Ohio, where they are censored, go to all the other States. As a matter of economy it would be far better to have that service performed by one Federal board. To do that work State by State will cost 48 times as much, or, counting the Territories, more than 50 times as much as it Avould cost to have it done once for all by a Federal board. In this connection I wish to emphasize again the point that the Inotion-picture business is almost entirely an interstate business. The only thing that the individual States Mill need to do will be to make i< law that no films shall be exhibited that lack the Federal board's license, and the cities will need only to see that the law is obeyed tmd other laws as to seating, lighting, and the like. Some of the motion-picture exhibitors and editors are in favor of the proposed law, and I think all who manufacture decent films would favor it if they could see the great increase of ])atronage that would be bound to come from the better class of people through the approval of such a commission as this bill would institute. Naturally the local boards of education all over the country will cooperate with the United States Board of Education when Federal censorship becomes a part of its work. It is in the interest of the morals of the country that this law should be enacted, and I do not think that it is in any way opposed to the best interests of the motion- picture men. Mr. ScHECHTER. Let me ask you this question: Are anv motion- picture concerns in favor of this legislation? Dr. Crafts. I have letters in my office to that effect—one from an ex-president of the New York Exhibitors' Association; and some ol the motion-picture men in central New York agree with me. The bill providing that the District Commissioners should censor films in the National Capital, which was vetoed by Mr. Taft, and has been quoted on the other side, really presents a good argument for our side of the question. The District Commissioners desired the veto, because they were unwillins: to give their own time to this W'ork and had no ex])erts who could gi\e the necessary time to the difficult task. Bear in mind that the vetoed bill did pass Congress, which thus registered its solemn conviction that films need censor- ship. The Chairman. That bill applied only to the city of Washington, 1 believe?