Moving Picture World (Jan-Jun 1910)

THE MOVING PICTURE WORLD 505 The Chinese Theater afforded me a subject last week, because it showed an opening for the moving pictures. It is possible that had not Raymond Hitchcock been the backer, nothing would have been heard of the resort. It now appears that Hitchcock is not the main attraction. He is, as stated last week, the backer, but he appears to be the soft backer — not the real manager. The story will be continued in our next. * * * The manager of the Chinese Theater is William Kavanaugh. At least, he was the manager. He is now in a hospital. He lies there, cut and slashed as a genuine hamburger steak would look. In other words, he is badly "cut up." He looks so bad that he could not make a good fifty-foot length of picture film. * # * Now for the story. Mr. Kavanaugh was missing for a week. The Chinese Theater wondered what became of the manager. When a Chinese wonders there is something doing. Nevertheless Mr. Kavanaugh was missing, and it was not until almost a week later that he was found in a hospital unconscious. How he received his wounds may never be known. Some say that he was chief interpreter for District Attorney Jerome during the inquiry to fix the responsibility of the respective Tongs. I believe the true story is this: About one year ago a favorite comedian at the Chinese Theater was killed. I will not say murdered. And at that time Kavanaugh swore he would be avenged! If the latter story is; correct, then there is nothing more to be said. exchanges only such exhibitors that secure licenses from that company. The aggregate number of exchanges, as specified by the last number issued by the Patents Company, does not show the number of exhibitors in the country. There are many cancellations, and, as I understand it, the numerical system is progressive. You may see, from whatever source your information may be, that the Patents Company has issued 14,897 licenses, but it does not follow that licenses to that number are in existence. To go on, it may be stated that the circulars of the Motion Picture Patents Company do not show the number of exhibitors in the United States. These circulars refer only to licensed exhibitors. It in no way refers to the independent exhibitors. I am not prepared at this lime to state how many picture places there are in the United States, but, to make a rough guess, I would say about 12,000, and of these I feel prepared to say there are 7»ooo licensed. I do not give this as official, for the reason that I am not qunting from official records. I wish to advance an impartial opinion: So long as. a question of oatents is involved there will always be controversy; and so long as quick money is to be made there will be manufacturing. Always keep your eye on the oleomargarine cases. The united efforts of the dairymen failed to beat it. It is still on sale and labeled as the stuff. I have been thinking over this matter and believe I am right. The haymakers have their day, but reapers must be heard from. I only refer to the case of Kavanaugh to bring to mind that the Chinese have an extraordinary liking for moving pictures. They do like the pictures — but they evidently do not like the manager. Applications for the position of manager of picture shows in any Chinese settlements will be most cheerfully received, but it must be understood that if we locate any party it does not carry a life insurance policy. * * * It has often been said that you cannot beat the makers of the moving pictures. And the exhibitors have time and again said you cannot beat the exchanges. There is give and take in all this, but. as a man going around, I will say that if you can beat the exhibitor in the present play of the game you are a good one. The exhibitor watches every issue of every paper that is issued in the interest of the film business. There is not an exchange that fails to find a customer at its counter with a copy of a paper — almost invariably the Moving Picture World. They know to a dot when this or that subject is issued, and you can't fool 'em. * ♦ ♦ I used to be connected with a film exchange and I know how we dealt the dope. But you can't do it these days. You must make good. I know of some backwoods towns that would stand for anything, but now they want first run! Imagine a manager of a thirty-second rate opera house demanding first run! Why? Because the nickelodeon is there. I touched upon this in my last article. A painter once made quite a reputation on his "Westward Ho!" The painter never lived that can foreshadow the motion picture field! Its scope is unsurmountable. and I offer here the prophecy that none in the business knows its scope. Certain parts of it may be covered by certain patents, certain people now engaged in the business may become wealthy, but the man who stands true and steadfast to the welfare of the truth — the true test — will not die a pauper. In all times of life there is something to consider. The one great thing is profit. We all recognize that it does not behoove any many to profit by illegal or unfair methods. * * * I have before me the following communication, and I hope that when I answer it I will not be compelled to refer to the matter again. It is a topic on which all people conversant with the film business should be acquainted. Nevertheless, I answer once, and for all time: The Motion Picture Patents Company report to their' PATHE NOT A TRUST. An important case has just been decided in the Court of Common Pleas of Wood County, Ohio, in a matter in which Pathe Freres and other film manufacturers were alleged to be in an unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade, in violalion of the Sherman Act and the Valentine Act of the State of Ohio. About two years ago Pathe Freres entered suit in this Court against the Co-operative Film Syndicate, of North Baltimore, Ohio, for the recovery of the purchase price of films sold to the defendants. The defendants retained George H. Phelps, of Findlay, Ohio, who is well known in that State as the "Trust Buster" Phelps who drove the Standard Oil Company from the State, to file a petition setting forth that Pathe Freres were part of a "trust." and, as such, asking damages against them in the sum of $20,000. Pathe Freres were represented by Thomas F. Howe, of Howe & Fordham, Chicago, and Frederick J. Flagg, of Toledo, Ohio, in addition to local counsel in Bowling Green. Testimony was taken in Chicago a number of months ago, and the case was called for trial at Bowling Green a few days ago. After a lengthy trial, in which the defense introduced considerable evidence to show that the plaintiffs were a part of an alleged "trust," the Court, on motion of Pathe Freres' attorneys, instructed the jury to disregard this claim in the defendants' petition and render a judgment on the merits of the original action. The jury returned a judgment in Pathe Freres' favor for the goods sold and delivered. The people of Ohio have been "trust" mad for some time, and that part of the statutes of that State known as the Valentine Act is considered the most drastic and far-reaching in existence. Tt has already been upheld by the Supreme Court of the State and there have been many convictions thereunder, resulting in the fine of corporations and imprisonment of their officers and managers. Notable among these cases have been those of the ice dealers and the lumber dealers in Toledo. This is the first case of this nature involving the film manufacturers in which a decision has been rendered, and coming from a Court of this State the decision would seem to effectually dispose of all chance that disgruntled exchanges or exhibitors may hereafter evade payment of their legitimate bills on the ground that the licensed manufacturers or licensed exchanges are an unlawful monopoly.