Motography (Jan-Mar 1916)

January 29, 1916. MOTOGRAPHY 225 grand opera, and yet in the motion pictures there is the suggestion that it should be censored. If there is a censorship it should be the censorship of public opinion." Dr. Brady said that there were 4,000 saloons in the mining districts in Pennsylvania five years ago. "There are now about 500," he said. "Moving pictures did it." Mr. Binder filed with the Committee the written protest against the bill of sixty-nine exchange men and exhibitors. He stated and filed figures showing that these men employed 2,900 persons, and had a capital of $113,000,000 invested. The exchange men and exhibitors vigorously protested against the proposed legislation and declared that its passage would greatly injure their business if not put an end to it, thus causing the loss of immense sums of money and throwing more than two thousand persons out of employment. These protests were signed by a score or more of exchange men or exhibitors who had been present during the three nights and who on account of the limited time could not be heard orally or by men who had planned to be present at the closing sessions and make oral protest. At the session of the Committee on Monday night, January 17, the chief speaker in opposition to the bill was Rabbi A. A. Simon of the Eighth Street Temple, the leading Jewish Synagogue in Washington. Rabbi Simon said that he did not appear to represent any organization, amr church, or was he interested in any motion picture company. He believed that a large majority of the pictures of the country are clean and wholesome. He said that the manufacturers were sensitive to public opinion and that this would ultimately bring about the censorship that would eliminate all pictures as to which there was any doubt. He declared that the power of public opinion in this country would take care of the censorship of motion pictures without the intervention of the federal government. Rabbi Simon detailed at length how a Jewish organization took up with the motion picture manufacturers the subject of the ridiculing and caricaturing of the Jews and that the manufacturers were so impressed with the statements made and so willing to heed suggestions that it was rare now that a man of Jewish blood, be he ever so sensitive, saw in a motion picture anything that might arouse his criticism. "There was no need of a protest," said Rabbi Simon. "The manufacturers showed that they wanted to meet public opinion and did so." W. Steven Bush of the Moving Picture World addressed the Committee. He protested against censorship and discussed the subject at considerable length. During the course of his remarks, Representative Powers of Kentucky asked him if any reason could be given for the censorship of these films that would not just as forcibly apply to newspapers, and Mr. Bush replied that there could not. Helen Varick Boswell, of New York, chairman of the Committee on Education of the General Federation of Women's Clubs of the United States and President of the Women's Forum of New York City, said : "This commission would be forced to sit on one horn or another of a dilemma. Either it would be so liberal that the persons creating it would rebel, or it would be so narrow that states, cities and towns would laugh it out of court. It is impossible to criticize films both for the mature and the immature. Children's pictures must be selected and exhibited under positive, constructive plans and not by censorship. The parents of the land have shirked their duty heretofore, and have given a foolish liberty to their children. It is their responsibility, not that of the nation, to formulate safeguards." Mrs. Howard S. Gans, president of the Federation of Child Study of New York, said : "Parents have been criminally negligent in their attitude toward motion pictures. There is no short cut or transference of responsibility. The same thoughts that have been given to children's plays, to the literature of youth and to the games of children must be given by parents to harnessing and developing the motion picture giants." The following telegram was received by the Committee from the Edison laboratory at Orange, N. J. : We are opposed to the principle of all Governmental censorships. A telegram was received from Rev. Thomas Dixon, Jr., reading as follows : If I write a book no censorship board asks to see the proofs. If I convert the same idea into a play and keep within the bounds of decency provided by the common law no censor can interpose his, "I forbid." Get rid of this censorship bugaboo and let the motion picture realize the brilliant future before it. David Horsley of Los Angeles telegraphed : I protest vigorously against the tearing down or hampering of the wonderful work being carried forward by motion pictures through professional reformers who will no doubt carry their reform ideas into the next world when they go and sit around criticizing the quality of the coal instead of doing their share of the shoveling. Rev. William Sheaf Chase, of New York, chairman of the social service committee of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Diocese of Long Island, vice-president of the New York Society for the Prevention of Crime, and president of the New York Civic League, made the principal statement favoring the bill. Dr. Chase with Dr. Craft led the fight for the measure in the last Congress. Dr. Chase stated that he disagreed with Mr. Binder's statement that of the 12,000,000 or more persons who daily attend motion pictures show between 8 and 10 per cent were children. "I think the number is nearer 33 per cent," said Dr. Chase. The opposition to the Hughes bill during the hearings just closed made out such a strong case that it is the general opinion that they succeeded in convincing the whole committee on education that the bill as drawn will have to be radically changed and its drastic features eliminated. Some even profess to believe that the committee may accept the substitute proposed by Mr. Binder and Mr. Seabury amending the federal code. In any event Motography'"s representative can say that the bill reported in any form will be accompanied by a strong minority report signed by several members of the committee who have been convinced that pre-publicity censorship is either unnecessary or unconstitutional. In the last congress the bill was reported unanimously. Questions asked and declarations made by members of the committee during the hearings indicate conclusively that it is divided on the bill irrespective of party, and that in the final line-up Democrats and Republicans will be found together in the majority and minority reports, respectively. This means that both majority and minority reports to the House will be in the nature of expressions of opinion and that the majority report which will be signed by Chairman Hughes and other members of the committee will not pro forma be accepted and supported by the Democratic majority in the house. Mr. Binder at the hearing on Tuesday night an