Moving Picture World (April-June 1915)

Record Details:

Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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.

1232 THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD May 22, 1915 Sunday Opening — A New Departure By \\'. Stephen Bush. IT WOULD be difficult to exaggerate the importance of the action of our Court of Appeals in holding that the exhibition of moving pictures on Sunday is legal and that no town, city or county has the right to pass any ordinance to the contrary. For the benefit of our readers not only in New York, but in every part of the country, we think it well to outline a brief history of the legal status of the motion picture in this state. ' \\'e do this because the laws of other states on the subject of Sunday opening are much like our own here in New York, and because the courts in other states will surely be guided to some extent at least by the interpretation which the courts in this state have put upon the law. The history which we venture to sketch here is full of encouragement to the advocates of a liberal and modern Sunday. It, therefore, deserves the earnest study and attention not only of the exhibitors, but of the general public as well. We take the main facts in the case from the decision of the late Justice Gaynor, rendered while he sat on the bench of the Appellate Division in the second department. The origin of the Sabbatarian laws goes back to the seventeenth century, when the observance of a still Sabbath on strictly mosaic principles was made one of the supreme tests of "godliness." We inherited this sort of legislation in all its "purity." Popularly these laws were known as "the blue laws." The spirit which breathed life into these statutes proceeded from the belief that man was made for the Sabbath, while the prevailing Christian doctrine outside the British Isles seemed to be that the Sabbath was made for man. We are not saying this in any controversial spirit, but because the statement is necessary to a thorough understanding of our present day situation. We do not, of course, for even a moment, mean to impugn the good faith and the motives of the men and women who still hold that a "still" Sabbath on the pattern of the Pharisees is essential to Christian life or to public life ger,erally. The spirit of the Sabbatarians a short time after the Revolution dictated the following law into the statute books of the state : "Things forbidden upon the first day of the week commonly called Sunday : All travel, servile work, all shooting, fishing, sporting, playing, horse racing, hunting or frequenting of tippling houses or any unlawful exercise or pastime." Later this provision of the general statutes of the state was copied into the Penal Code, which prohibited "all shooting, hunting, fishing, playing, horse racing, gaming or other public sports exercises upon the first day of the week commonly called Sunday." The late Justice Gaynor construed this statute as applicable to out-door sports or shows only and declared that the arrest of an exhibitor under the statute for keeping his theater open on Sundays was illegal. The exhibitor who had been convicted in the lower court was thereupon discharged. A majority of the judges on the appellate bench agreed with Judge Gaynor, and his interpretation of the law has stood ever since and has now been sustained by the highest Court of the state. The interpretation has been followed in several instances since notably in Binghamton and in Yonkers. The Board of Aldermen of Yonkers attempted to legislate on the subject of Sunday opening on their own account notwith standing the law of the state. They were promptly calletl to task by the Appellate Division which has now been sustained by the Court of Appeals. We print the decision in another part of this issue. The plain and simple English of the situation is this: Every exhibitor in the state of New York may open his theater on Sunday and any attempt on the part of the police to interfere is illegal and oppressive and may be stopped by an appeal to the courts. The local authorities may surround the granting of a license with certain conditions and restrictions as to the hours of opening and closing, but no subdivision of the sfate may override the general law of the state. In advising exhibitors to take advantage of this situation and to assert their undoubted legal rights we would like to couple the advice with a word or two of caution. If exhibitors will endeavor to pay some respect to the character of the day in the composition of their Sunday program they will come very near to disarming hostile criticism. The legislature which has just adjourned had considered a bill for closing the motion picture theaters on Sunday. The bill did not pass, but there is little doubt that its sponsors will be heard from again next year. If the exhibitors in this state use their right of conducting Stmday performances sensibly and discreetly the chances of an anti-Sunday bill in 1916 will be slim. If we are in a position to point to a clean and orderly conduct of motion pictures shown on Sunday we will present an unanswerable argument in favor of Sunday motion pictures. We urge every exhibitor to be careful in the selection of his Sunday program and to avoid even the appearance of evil. We do not mean to say that he should run nothing but religious films on that day. Even if he were so inclined he could not do that for more than three or four Sundays because the supply of good religious subjects is notoriously small. We do say, however, that all comedies with even a taint of vulgarity should be scrupulously avoided. The biggest and by far the most successful motion picture theater in the world is never without a scenic or educational picture on its program. Let the exhibitor hunt for pictures of this type; pictures that combine instruction with entertainment. There are such pictures, and they make ideal spots on a Sunday program. A lecture on Sunday is another suitable feature. Let the public be taught that the screen does not only amuse, but that it is also capable of imparting knowledge, which is interesting and useful. The writer knows from his own observation that the motion picture has changed the character of many a rustic community, which before the advent of the picture was ignorant and narrow. Above all things let the exhibitor assume a conciliatory attitude toward the men and women who from the best of motives may be opposed to motion picures on Sunday. The ignorance and narrowness of some of these people may indeed be invincible, but as a rule the appeal to reason wins out. Let the exhibitor make it known in his local papers that he proposes to run a special program on Sundays, and let him invite the clergymen and the editors and the teachers and the deacons to come and convince themselves that they are perfectlv safe in either coming themselves or sending their children. Sundav opening in New York and to a certain extent in the whole country, is now on trial. It depends on the exhibitor himself whether it has come to stay.