Moving Picture News (Jan-Dec 1911)

Wi)t iilotjing picture i^eiajsi PUBLISHED EVERY SATURDAY The CINEMATOGRAPH PUBLISHING COMPANY, 30 West Thirteenth Street, NEW YORK CITY Telephone, 4092 Chelsea European Agents: INTEENATIONAL NEWS CO., Chicago Representative: J. J. Sullivan. Breams Building, Chancery Lane, London, E. C. ^^t^^^^^' 866 Graceland Ave. 'Phone Graceland 5053 ALFRED H. SAUNDERS, Editor. This newspaper is owned and published by the Cinematograph Publishing Company, a New York corporation. Office and principal place of business No. 30 West 13th Street. New York. Alfred H. Saunders, President; John A. Wilkens, Secretary, and W. M. Petingale, Treasurer. The address ot the officers is the office of the newspaper. SITBSCEIPTION : $2.00 per year. Postpaid in the United States, Mexico, Hawaii, Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands. Canada and Foreign Countries: $2.50 per year. All communications should be addressed to The Moving Picture News, 30 West Thirteenth Street, New York City. ADVERTISING RATES: $60 per page, $30 J-pag-a, $15 i-page, single column $20, $2 per inch. Discounts, 20'^ 12; 10% 6; 5% 3 months. Volume IV February 18, 1911 Number 7 ^ ^ IRotes of the lHHcek ^ ^ OUR FRONT COVER ILLUSTRATION. The cut in the center this week ilkistrates a scene from the "Solax" release of February 2jth. entitled "Love's Test," a full synopsis of which appears in the usual column of the manufacturers' data. The cut following is another illustration from tlTe same subject : THE INDEPENDENT SITUATION We have been taken to task very severely for publishing in our issue of February 4th the full statement and text of the suits before the Circuit Court in New York, Avherein we claimed a "Great Independent A^ictory," gained on February ist. We have been told that we have published untruthful, misleading and malicious statements, it was remarked that we had committed a great travesty of good taste, had abused the privileges of our editorial position, and that generally speaking, we had made a hash of the whole business. A statement was made that we might hear more about it in contempt proceedings. We asked him, why so highly indignant at the ^Moving Picture News for giving publicity to what we believed of very vast importance to the trade not only in America but the world over? We would like to point out the fact that the eyes of th-e trade in every civilized country are looking to America to learn the results of litigation by the Patents Company against the Motion Picture Distributing and Sales Company's Associates. We want to go on record as saying that the party aggrieved did not have the courage of his convictions nor did he have the honesty of putting those opinions in letter form, protesting against the article published. \Ye told him we would give him all the publicit)^ that he desired and would publish his naine in full and our remarks thereto, hut up to the present tiine of writing we have heard nothing concerning the matter. We want to put ourselves right with our readers and re-assert that the proceedings in the court of February ist were of the utmost importance to the industry, and the News was the only paper that published this report, notwithstanding the fact that every paper received a copy of the proceedings as did we ourselves. We took the matter up Avith a prominent member of the Sales Company, who furnished us with the data, and he said that he had taken the matter up personally with his private counsel and this counsel had declared there was nothing in the report as published, except what was of the utmost importance, and should be distributed broadcast, so that the public at large might have the facts at first hand; that there was nothing in the report that any one could object to, or call in question as to its truthfulness. We are content and fully satisfied with that ruling. We may say in addition to the above that we have no intention of disseminating misinformation, nor have we any desire to create unrest among exhibitors. There is nothing baseless about the facts that we published but that they may cause unrest among the exhibitors is possibly correct. We take it for granted the exhibitors are now beginning to see that they are paying $104 a year for absolutely no protection whatever, they are paying $104 a year for the privilege of using their own machines, and running any old "cold copies" that the exchange chooses to give them, if they murmur, or state that they have used this copy some months ago, they are told they can take that or nothing, they are perfectly helpless, and the General Filmi Company or whatever alias it chooses to go under.