UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 SCHOOL OF LAW 
 LIBRARY
 
 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 A Study 
 In Social Legislation 
 
 BY 
 
 DONALD YOUNG, PH.D. 
 
 WHARTON SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 
 PRINTED BY 
 
 WESTBROOK PUBLISHING CO. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA, PA. 
 
 1922 
 
 MOTION PICTURE itt M O 
 
 366 MADISON AVEN 
 NEW YORK, N 
 
 LARRY EDMUNDS BOOKSHOP 
 
 6658 HOLLYWOOD BLVD 
 
 HOLLYWOOD 28. CALIF. 
 
 HO. 3-3273 
 
 WORLD'S LARGEST COLLECTION 
 OF BOOKS ON MOTION PICTURES
 
 T
 
 
 Co
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 I 
 
 MOTION PICTURES AS A FACTOR IN AMERICAN ENVIRONMENT 1 
 
 II 
 SOCIAL STANDARDS OF THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY AND THE PUBLIC. . . 8 
 
 III 
 CONFORMITY OF MOTION PICTURES TO THE ACCEPTED SOCIAL STANDARDS . 2 1 
 
 IV 
 EFFECTS OF MOTION PICTURES ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 34 
 
 V 
 THE NATIONAL BOARD OF REVIEW OF MOTION PICTURES 42 
 
 VI 
 FEDERAL LEGISLATION 53 
 
 VII 
 
 LOCAL LEGISLATION; Municipal Regulation 60 
 
 VIII 
 LOCAL LEGISLATION; State Boards of Censorship 64 
 
 IX 
 SUMMARY . . 82
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 1 
 
 I 
 MOTION PICTURES AS A FACTOR IN AMERICAN ENVIRONMENT 
 
 "THREE billion is our estimate of the annual admissions to 
 motion picture houses in the United States," says an official of 
 the Famous Players-Lask^y Corporation, one of the most impor- 
 tant motion picture producing corporations in the world. An 
 editor of the Motion Picture News, one of the leading American 
 trade journals, believes that a more accurate estimate is four 
 billion for the yearly attendance, with a corresponding daily 
 attendance of from twelve to fifteen million, or approximately 
 one-eighth of the entire population of the country per day. The 
 United States Federal Trade Commission in a recent investiga- 
 tion of the industry decided that a daily attendance of twenty 
 million was not an unreasonable estimate. ' This would lead to 
 the conclusion that the annual attendance approaches six billion, 
 a total twice as great as that offered by Famous Players-Lask^y. * 
 There seems to be little or no conclusive evidence to support any 
 of these estimates. For our purposes their importance lies not 
 in their absolute accuracy, but in the fact that men in responsible 
 positions, men who are best qualified to express opinions on the 
 subject, are willing to estimate the industry as one of the leading 
 enterprises in the country with a patronage many times the total 
 population of the country. 
 
 An annual motion picture directory claims to have listed 
 20,006 motion picture theatres with addresses, in addition to 
 3,673 other theatres which present motion pictures not ex< lusively 
 but as a side line supplementing a traveling company business. * 
 
 1 United States Federal Trade Commission, Docket Number 835, August 
 30, 1921, Washington, D. C. 
 
 2 A fairly reliable estimate places the daily attendance for 1916 between 
 eight and ten million. The apparent increase is significant. See House of 
 
 "Representatives, Hearings before the Committee on Education, January 13-19, 
 1916, p. 203. 
 
 Julius Cahn, Gus Hill, Theatrical Guide and Motion Picture Directory, 1921, 
 and Supplement for 1922.
 
 2 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 The territory covered by these 23,679 theatres, however, includes 
 Canada, Porto Rico and Alaska, as well as the United States 
 proper. Wid's Daily, a paper devoted entirely to motion picture 
 news, estimates that there are about 14,000 recognized motion 
 picture theatres in the United States, according to a statement 
 made by the business manager. An editor of the Motion Picture 
 News agrees with this estimate. The publicity director of the 
 National Association of the Motion Picture Industry, Inc., is 
 unable to make any more definite estimate than to say that the 
 number varies from 14,000 to 17,000. The Federal Trade Com- 
 mission has decided on the larger figure of 18,000 established 
 motion picture theatres in the United States. * Building permits 
 show more than 2,700 new theatres in the course of construction. * 
 Again we find that no agreement exists concerning motion picture 
 statistics. On the basis of such scattering information as is 
 available it is probable that 18,000 is a closer guess than any of 
 the other guesses which have been considered. 3 The seating 
 capacity of these theatres varies from 200 or less to over 5,000, 
 though there are only a few that come near the latter figure. 
 It is easily seen that the motion picture as a part of our idea- 
 forming environment is not a factor to be neglected. 
 
 In order to demonstrate that motion pictures are not a mere 
 local phenomenon thriving only in the United States, attention 
 may be called to the Australian statistics for the year 1920. 
 "The total attendance at motion picture theatres during the last 
 year was 67,466,657, or more than thirteen times the entire 
 population of the country, while the revenues paid to the state 
 in the form of taxes were almost half the entire sum collected 
 from all amusement enterprises during the year." The total 
 attendance at all amusements in Australia during the year was 
 
 1 United States Federal Trade Commission, Docket Number 835, August 
 30, 1921, Washington, D. C. 
 
 1 Moving Picture World, Vol. 51, No. 7, August 13, 1921, p. 689. 
 
 3 See appendix A for detailed information concerning the number and 
 distribution of motion picture theatres.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 3 
 
 95,866,620, or about nineteen times the entire population, which 
 in round numbers was 5,000,000. l 
 
 It is hardly necessary that any similar figures be quoted for 
 European and other countries. It is not within the scope of 
 this work to outline the international development of the industry 
 except when such an exposition would aid in interpreting its 
 development in this country. For that purpose it is sufficient 
 to say that the development of motion pictures has been practi- 
 cally the same throughout the civilized world, though more 
 gradual in some places than in others. 2 
 
 Pick up almost any issue of any trade journal, and considerable 
 space will be found to be devoted to the importance of foreign 
 competition, to the lessons taught by the experience of foreign 
 producers and exhibitors. The Exhibitors' Herald, Motion 
 Picture News, Exhibitors' Trade Review, Moving Picture World, 
 and Wid's Daily, the leading motion picture trade journals, are 
 constantly fighting existing and proposed tariff measures on raw 
 and exposed film for import and export. The competition of 
 English, Italian, Belgian and German producers is being care- 
 fully watched by these journals. They do not consider motion 
 pictures an American institution with a few parallel developments 
 in foreign countries. They recognize that the American industry, 
 while it may have progressed more rapidly in so far as its size 
 is concerned, is not economically, mechanically or artistically 
 independent, but is a part of a much broader movement. 
 
 It has been shown that motion pictures are an important part 
 of the environment of the people of this country, and of those 
 
 1 Moving Picture World, Vol. 51, No. 8, August 20, 1921, p. 790. 
 
 1 The export and import figures in Appendix B, taken from the United 
 States Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, 
 Commerce Reports, January 2, 1922, pp. 34 and 35, emphasize the rapid 
 growth of the international interdependence of motion picture interests.
 
 4 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 of other civilized countries as well. l The statistics quoted in 
 support of this contention are in many cases of questionable 
 accuracy due to the fact that the development of the industry 
 has been both rapid and recent, but they are the best available, 
 and are vouched for by leading members of the trade, men who 
 have been in positions to know conditions. In no case, except- 
 ing the import and export figures of the United States Department 
 of Commerce, were any estimates included unless at least two 
 other estimates were used as checks on their accuracy. The 
 highest estimate was never quoted, no matter how plausible 
 were the arguments on which it was based. In some cases we 
 have figures which are possibly too high. In other cases, we 
 may have been too conservative. It is worthy of remark, how- 
 ever, that the recent findings of the United States Federal Trade 
 Commission are as optimistic as are the trade statements which 
 have been quoted in this report. The material is significant 
 because responsible men are willing to issue statistics showing 
 the industry to be of such great size, and do so without fear of 
 radical refutation. In the last analysis, for that matter, such 
 statistics are not essential in so far as we are here concerned 
 except as a general indication of the extent of the motion picture's 
 influence for purposes of comparison with other idea -forming 
 
 1 Owing to the recent and rapid development of the motion picture industry , 
 and the consequent rarity of authoritative and comprehensive works on the 
 problems connected with it, it has been deemed inadvisable to attempt to 
 include a bibliography as a part of this study. Anyone who may wish to go 
 more deeply into the subject is referred to the following lists of references 
 which, while'not so extensive as might possibly be desirable, afford a starting 
 point for further readings: 
 
 Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education, "List of References on the 
 Use of Pictures in Education," Library Leaflet No. 13, December, 1920, 
 Washington, D. C. 
 
 Cannon, Lucius H., "Motion Pictures, Laws, Ordinances and Regulations." 
 Contains a list of references compiled by Melitta Diez Peschke, St. Louis 
 Public Library, July, 1920. This list has been reproduced in Wid's Year 
 Book for 1920, p. 288b.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 5 
 
 institutions, for the great attendance at the numerous motion \ 
 picture theatres in the United States is so well known that it 
 needs no proof. 
 
 This important industry is of interest to society from three 
 points of view. First, there are the problems of production, 
 distribution and exhibition. These problems, however, concern 
 us here only in so far as they have some direct bearing on the 
 social as distinguished from the economic questions involved in 
 a study of motion pictures. For example, the mechanics of 
 photography and projection in themselves have no significance 
 in a social study, but it is of considerable importance to know 
 that practically all inventions of mechanisms which have per- 
 mitted the establishment of the present industry have been 
 made in the past twenty years. 1 The allegation of the Federal 
 Trade Commission that a controlling interest in the industry is 
 concentrated in one small central group of men is primarily 
 an economic question, but it is an economic question which has 
 social aspects which are evident when one stops to think that, 
 due to this concentration, it may be within the power of a very 
 few men to say what type of picture will be shown in a majority 
 of theatres, and that the pictures produced by these same men 
 will be shown, though not exclusively, in 98 per cent, of the 
 theatres of this country, according to their own advertisements. 
 The economic side, while not our primary interest, may have 
 a distinct bearing on the social aspects of motion pictures. 
 
 Secondly, there is the problem of the health of the patrons- 
 Controversies concerning the effect of motion pictures on the eyes ^ 
 have been common in recent years, and still seem to be unsettled I 
 though the weight of opinion inclines in favor of the harmlessness \ 
 of motion pictures except in the comparatively few instances J 
 
 1 An appreciation of the rapid development of the motion picture may be 
 gained by reading any of the innumerable magazine articles of ten or fifteen 
 years ago describing its wonders, and comparing the facts there presented 
 with the well-known achievements of today. An example of the old type of 
 article is one by Charles B. Brewer, The Widening Field of the Moving 
 Picture, Century, Vol. LXXXVI, No. 1, May, 1913.
 
 6 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 where eyesight is badly defective to begin with. Minute 
 regulations intended to protect the patrons from the dangers 
 incident to fires in public places are provided by every state and 
 city in the form of state laws, city ordinances or the edicts of 
 local authorities. Building regulations usually specify a minimum 
 of ventilation. The problem of sanitation is not a simple one. 
 The fact that all theatres in infected areas were closed by govern- 
 ment order during the recent influenza epidemic is an indication 
 of the importance of this side of the question. However, such 
 problems are technical medical and building problems, and 
 mainly administrative. They do not fall within the scope of a 
 social study of this nature. 
 
 Finally, we have the problems of social standards, of ideals, of 
 
 morals. Social standards are influenced by motion pictures by 
 
 the pictures themselves, that is, by the mental impressions 
 
 received by the audiences from the screen portrayals of life, and 
 
 by the peculiar physical conditions imposed by motion picture 
 
 theatres on the patrons. There is an undoubted effect on 
 
 standards of conduct resulting from the fact that the audience, 
 
 often young boys and girls, are packed in narrow seats, close 
 
 together, in a darkened room. l New words and phrases are 
 
 ; coined only to meet new situations, and it is significant that the 
 
 ; phrases, "movie masher" and "knee flirtation" are coming into 
 
 use. 
 
 It is, therefore, with the effects of the pictures themselves on 
 those who view them that we have to deal. The other phases 
 are equally important, but of a different nature. The problems 
 of social standards resulting from the physical features of 
 motion picture houses, such as those arising from close seating in 
 semi-darkened theatres, are almost wholly administrative, as 
 
 1 "No one considering the effect of moving pictures can neglect the possi- 
 bilities for bad behavior which occur through the darkness of the hall in 
 which the pictures are shown. Under cover of dimness, evil communications 
 readily pass and bdd habits are taught. Moving picture theatres are favorite 
 places for the teaching of homosexual practices." Healy, Wm., The Indi- 
 vidual Delinquent, p. 308.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 7 
 
 as are the problems of the elimination of fire, mob, building and 
 health risks. In principle it is generally agreed that such risks 
 should be minimized. 
 
 No such agreement exists in the consideration of the effect of 
 the pictures on those who see them. The industry, the educators, 
 the churchmen, the general public, all are divided and fighting 
 among themselves over questions of principle involved. The 
 method of fighting in vogue is that of flat contradiction of fact, 
 although the facts do not seem to be difficult to obtain if wanted. 
 Possibly they are not wanted. There is indeed no question but 
 that many elemental facts, some of which it is inconceivable that 
 anyone financially interested in the industry can have over- 
 . looked, have either been overlooked or deliberately disregarded. 
 One of these, for example, is the undoubted constitutionality of 
 censorship through the previewing of pictures. Though there 
 have been two Supreme Court decisions on this question, many 
 debaters against censorship use the plea of unconstitutionality 
 as one of their main arguments. As a result of such attitudes 
 it is necessary to study the facts themselves, and there are plenty 
 available for study, rather than to argue on a basis of pure 
 principle, if any sound conclusions are to be reached.
 
 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 II 
 
 SOCIAL STANDARDS OF THE MOTION PICTURE INDUSTRY 
 AND THE PUBLIC 
 
 I IT was one of the original purposes of this paper to develop a 
 set of social standards whereby to judge the deviation of life 
 as portrayed on the screen from normal conduct, and then to 
 determine the probable social effects of the existing types of 
 , motion pictures. With this end in view, letters were written to 
 various legal boards of censorship asking for the rules by which 
 they judged films. Pennsylvania sent a detailed printed state- 
 ment of acts and situations which were not permitted in pictures 
 passed by its board of censorship. Ohio, on the other hand, 
 maintained that a request for standards was impossible of 
 fulfilment, on the grounds that no absolute standards could be 
 established, and that even if any were established, adherence to 
 them would be folly. Other replies received were similar to 
 one or the other of these two. Upon further investigation, 
 however, it is noticed that those boards of censorship which do 
 issue formal standards specifically reserve the right to disregard 
 them whenever they deem it necessary. The Pennsylvania 
 board, for example, in the explanations of several of its pro- 
 hibitions, carefully mentions that they are not absolute, but 
 merely indicative of what the board believes desirable in most 
 cases. No case can be judged without reference to factors 
 outside of the picture which might alter its desirability. This 
 is the reason why practically all municipal and state censorship 
 legislation merely provides that "indecent", "obscene", "las- 
 civious", "filthy," "unlawful", "sacrilegious", or "immoral" 
 scenes shall be eliminated, instead of making more definite 
 provision concerning specific undesired acts. It would be folly 
 for them to make more definite provision, especially in view of 
 the fact that the courts have held that the above terms are
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 9 
 
 sufficiently definite for ordinary purposes. 1 Fixed standards, 
 rigidly applied, due to the fact that proper social standards are 
 the result of and vary with the environment, are an impossibility. 
 
 The discussion concerning motion picture standards has been 
 kept alive by four groups of people. These are, first, the mem- 
 bers of the industry itself; second, the legal authorities who super- 
 vise the showing of motion pictures; third, miscellaneous organiza- 
 tions which have interested themselves in motion picture reform; 
 and, fourth, the National Board of Review, which must be given 
 a separate place in this classification on account of its unique 
 character. It is true that there also has been considerable 
 general discussion of the subject, but such discussion has accom- 
 plished little that is tangible except where it has developed into 
 or allied itself with one of the groups mentioned above. The 
 value of such general criticisms and suggestions, however, should 
 not be underestimated on this account. It is undoubtedly 
 largely responsible, for instance, for the formation and continu- 
 ance of the National Board of Review. It has also probably 
 caused a considerable change in the programs of the members 
 of the industry. It is omitted only because its views are well 
 represented by those of the groups mentioned. This being true, 
 a discussion of the standards advocated by the groups mentioned 
 will be sufficiently inclusive and representative to show 
 whether or not any general and fundamental disagreement 
 concerning socially undesirable film plays is discernible. 
 
 The members of the trade are probably the largest organized, 
 actively interested group of all. They have spent great amounts 
 of time, effort and money in endeavoring to ascertain what 
 should and what should not be shown on the screen. Naturally 
 their purpose has not been to make certain that the public 
 morals do not suffer from what is seen in the movies. The 
 producer, the distributor, the exhibitor, all are in the business to 
 
 1 See, for example; Jake Block, Nathan Wolf, et al., vs. The City of Chicago, 
 239 Illinois Supreme Court Reports, 251; Mutual Film Corporations. Indus- 
 trial Commission of Ohio, 236 U. S. Supreme Court Reports, 240.
 
 10 
 
 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 \ make money, and the motion picture that they will show will be 
 | and is the one they believe will draw the largest crowd. l 
 
 In any competitive business enterprise, the ultimate goal must 
 
 be the greatest possible number of sales. The motion picture 
 
 industry is not an industry apart from the others. We cannot 
 
 ' blindly censure the producer for making pictures the exhibitors 
 
 will buy or rent at the highest prices nor can we censure the 
 
 exhibitor for showing the picture he believes the public wants, 
 
 ; ' so long as there is reasonable doubt as to their social effect, and 
 
 |we must assume that such doubt exists when federal, state and 
 
 I local officials do not use the power they have to prevent the 
 
 exhibition of all films which are unquestionably contrary to 
 
 ' public policy. Even though we could frown upon such mercenary 
 
 conduct, we could not reasonably expect or hope that many 
 
 men would voluntarily ruin highly profitable enterprises in 
 
 1 The attitude of at least some leading motion picture producers is indicated 
 by the following quotations: 
 
 "Several weeks ago I published a straight-from-the-shoulder talk entitled 
 'Which Do You Want?' asking the exhibitors of America whether they 
 preferred clean, wholesome pictures or smutty ones. Instead of discovering 
 that 95 per cent, favored clean pictures, I discovered that at least half, and 
 maybe 60 per ce'nt. want the pictures to be 'risque', which is a French way 
 of saying 'smutty'. The whole thing was an eye-opener, so totally different 
 from what I expected that I am stumped! The Universal does not pose as a 
 guardian of public morals or of public taste. For that reason it is quite 
 possible that we may put out a picture that is off-color now and then as a 
 feeler. We have no such picture yet, but it is easy to make them." Carl 
 Laemm^le, President of Universal Film Manufacturing Company, in Moving 
 Picture Weekly, November, 1915, quoted by Chase, William Sheafe, Catechism 
 on Motion Pictures, New York City, 1921. 
 
 Similar statements by equally prominent motion picture production officials 
 may be found in an article by Mr. B. B. Hampton in the Pictorial Review, 
 February, 1921, and the Congressional Hearings on House of Representatives 
 Bill 456, January 13-19, 1916. Careful reading of articles in the leading 
 trade papers seems to indicate that the type of attitude expressed by the 
 above quotation is becoming less frequent, or at least it is an attitude no 
 longer so freely aired.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 11 
 
 order to be on the safe side of an argument which is far from 
 settled. 
 
 The motion picture industry is avowedly attempting to 
 present the types of pictures which the audiences wish to see. 
 This is evidenced by the fact that the different types of houses 
 show different types of pictures. For example, the motion 
 picture houses are divided into two classes, the neighborhood 
 houses and downtown houses. Neighborhood houses include 
 all those which are in outlying parts of cities or in the smaller 
 cities and villages. "Million dollar spectacles" are shown primarily 
 in the downtown houses, i. e., those centrally located in large 
 cities, because it has been found that if they are to be successful, 
 such pictures must derive most of their income from the audiences 
 which frequent the downtown houses. Many actors are known 
 to be excellent drawing cards in the neighborhood theatre, while 
 in the centrally located theatre their pictures are failures. In 
 reporting on the drawing ability of a picture, the exhibitor is 
 usually asked to mention the type of audience to which it was 
 shown. The president of one of the largest chains of theatres 
 in this country remarked recently to the author that "the 
 downtown audiences will stand for a lot more sex stuff than the 
 neighborhood audience, and they expect it, too." We may safely 
 say that the industry is trying to give its customers what they 
 want, even though they may want questionable products. l 
 
 1 This not uncommon statement, that the motion picture interests are 
 giving the public what it wants, is largely true, but is worthy of comment as 
 an argument against censorship only to show that, as the Lancaster (Pa.) 
 Law and Order Society pointed out in an open letter to Governor Sproul of 
 Pennsylvania, dated November 29, 1920, this is a condemning admission, 
 for it admits that the industry has no independent responsibility or ideals, 
 and therefore needs to be watched, and that "it is not true that the moving 
 picture men have no responsibility in this matter, for they themselves have 
 helped to demoralize the public taste," Lancaster Law and Order Society, 
 Annual Report, 1920, p. 5. 
 
 There is no lack of precedent for the governmental regulation of industries 
 which claim to give the people what they desire. We have detailed require- 
 ments for the formation of corporations; the milk, meat and general food 
 supply is " previewed " ; many drugs are minutely regulated in their distribution-
 
 12 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 No other generalization as to the standards of the industry 
 can be made. There is no set of standards which could be 
 applied to the entire field. It is, however, encouraging to note 
 that while certain elements seem to have no ideals to which they 
 adhere, the leaders in the industry are back of the movement 
 to have only unimpeachable pictures shown. Their motive 
 may be mainly economic. It may be that they see the hand- 
 writing on the wall. Whatever the cause for their desire for 
 clean pictures, that desire is a fact. "Women constitute 65 per 
 cent, of your audience. Why offend them?" says an advertisement 
 in a motion picture annual. "There are some things that 
 cannot be done safely even to fill empty seats in the summer- 
 time," remarks the editor of the Exhibitors' Herald in discussing 
 the showing of a "sordid mess" by the name of "Some Wild 
 Oats" in a number of mid- western theatres. l The bitter edito- 
 rial of which this was a part may have been inspired by a growing 
 consciousness of the fact that the industry's methods of filling 
 empty seats are under fire, but it is, nevertheless, significant, 
 that such an editorial should be given prominent place in a 
 prominent journal. An executive of the Realart Company, 
 after a ten weeks' tour of the United States in the interests of 
 the motion picture industry, was convinced that there exists a 
 universal sentiment among exhibitors against showing any but 
 clean pictures. He is very careful to add that this virtuous 
 tendency is not the result of a sudden desire on the part of the 
 exhibitors to protect humanity from itself, but that it is the 
 result of new social conditions which are eliminating the sala- 
 cious, suggestive picture. 2 
 
 It is also worthy of comment here that one large producing 
 firm has recently engaged a well-known experienced censor as a 
 permanent member of its staff to pass on its films before their 
 release. a The immediate purpose of the company may be to 
 save money by making their product "censor proof," as is being 
 
 1 Exhibitors' Herald, Vol. XIII, No. 11, September 10, 1921, p. 36. 
 * Motion Picture News, Vol. XXIV, No. 19, October 29, 1921, p. 2274. 
 Moving Picture World, Vol. XXIV, No. 16, October 8, 1921, p. 1852.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 13 
 
 attempted by many other companies, but coming at the present 
 time, the action must also be recognized as a yielding, be it 
 ever so slight, to an increasing public demand for clean pictures. 
 That the members of the motion picture industry are not 
 entirely insensible to the necessity of and demand for "clean 
 pictures" is evidenced by the fact that the ^ 
 
 of the Motion Picture Industry, representing the producers of 
 a great majority of the motion pictures made in the United 
 States, on March 5, 1921, unanimously adopted resolutions 
 condemning the use of motion pictures as a means of "arousing 
 bawdy emotions or pandering to a salacious curiosity", or 
 otherwise endangering the public welfare. l Provision was made 
 that the resolutions should not be so interpreted as to hamper 
 the creators of art in motion pictures. 
 
 In view of the fire of criticism which is being directed at the 
 supposed lack of standards on the part of the motion picture 
 interests, it seems advisable to reproduce in detail ^P j^^als 
 which they profess to support. Tha resolutions condemn the 
 production of pictures: 
 " (a) Which emphasize and exaggerate the sex appeal or depict 
 
 scenes therein exploiting interest in sex in an improper or 
 
 suggestive form or manner. 
 "(&) Based upon white slavery or commercialized vice, or 
 
 scenes showing the procurement of women or any of the 
 
 activities attendant upon this traffic. 
 " (c) Thematically making prominent an illicit love affair which 
 
 tends to make virtue odious and vice attractive. 
 " (d) With scenes which exhibit nakedness or persons scantily 
 
 dressed, particularly suggestive bedroom and bathroom 
 
 scenes and scenes of inciting dancing. 
 " (e) With scenes which unnecessarily prolong expressions or 
 
 demonstrations of passionate love. 
 " (/) Predominantly concerned with the underworld or vice and / 
 
 crime, and like scenes, unless the scenes are part of an / 
 
 essential conflict between good and evil. 
 
 1 Chase, William Sheafe, Catechism on Motion Pictures, New York City, 
 1921, p. 21.
 
 14 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 "(g) Of stories which make gambling and drunkenness attrac- 
 rf tive, or of scenes which show the use of narcotics and other 
 
 unnatural practices dangerous to social morality. 
 "(ti) Of stories and scenes which may instruct the morally 
 feeble in methods of committing crimes, or by cumulative 
 
 processes, emphasize crime and the commission of crime. 
 ."(*) Of stories or scenes which ridicule or deprecate public 
 / officials, officers of the law, the United States Army, the 
 United States Navy, or other governmental authority, or 
 which tend to weaken the authority of the law. 
 "(/) Of stories or scenes or incidents which offend religious 
 belief or any person, creed or sect, or ridicule ministers, 
 J priests, rabbis or recognized leaders of any religious sect, 
 and also which are disrespectful to objects or symbols used 
 in connection with any religion. 
 
 " (k) Of stories or with scenes which unduly emphasize bloodshed 
 and violence without justification in the structure of the 
 story. 
 "(/) Of stories or with scenes which are vulgar and portray 
 
 improper gestures, posturing and attitudes. 
 " (m) With salacious titles and sub-titles in connection with 
 their presentation or exhibition, and the use of salacious 
 advertising matter, photographs and lithographs in con- 
 nection therewith." 1 
 
 These standards correspond to a great extent with the pro- 
 
 / visions concerning objectionable matter issued by the Pennsyl- 
 
 < vania and other boards of censorship, except that they are not 
 
 so detailed and make more allowance for "artistic expression". 
 
 The frequent eliminations by the various boards of review from 
 
 films submitted to them by the same producers who signed these 
 
 resolutions implies either a wide divergence of opinion as to what 
 
 is injurious to the public welfare, or that the resolutions, were 
 
 not binding upon all of those who subscribed to them. Since, 
 
 as we shall see later, the expressed standards of practically all 
 
 1 Chase, William Sheafe, p. 21.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 15 
 
 boards of review are based on the same ideals of conduct as 
 those expressed in the above resolutions, the first possibility is 
 minimized, though not eliminated. There is agreement upon I 
 what is socially desirable, but in actual practice, it is not always | 
 the socially desirable course of action which is pursued. 
 
 In actual practice, in fact, each company has its own standards, 
 whether it is a producing or exhibiting organization. For 
 example, many theatres, especially the larger ones, run over the 
 films before the public showing and eliminate what is believed 
 to be objectionable to the audience for which it is intended. 
 This practice is so common even in states and communities which 
 have little or no legal censorship that it excites no trade comment. 
 It is taken for granted that each manager will use his own judg- 
 ment. Such cuts are frequently made to shorten the program 
 or to improve the "action" of the pictures from a technical 
 point of view, but they are also made in order that the patrons 
 may not be offended. Some few films are circulated throughout 
 the country in the form in which they have been approved by 
 one of the state boards of censorship, though no legal power to 
 compel such procedure exists. There is no question that the 
 entire industry knows what is accepted as socially desirable. 
 Their actions and resolutions demonstrate that fact. How far 
 their pictures are in accord with what they know to be the 
 socially desirable standards is another matter. 
 
 Knowing that an appreciable percentage of the producers and 
 exhibitors are willing, are anxious to give the people what they 
 want; knowing that the energies of the industry are being 
 bent to the task of finding out what its patrons want to see, it 
 is of little importance further to study the standards of its 
 leaders. We know that they are governed by self-interest, and ' 
 that self-interest tells them to produce the thing that will sell 
 best. Heretofore, the picture which has sold the best, or which 
 nasbeen believed to be the best seller, has been the sex picture 
 or the melodramatic thriller portraying crime, violence and 
 sudden death. In view of the rapid rise of the industry, the 
 conclusions of its leaders that such pictures were wanted seems 
 not entirely unjustified. But is the bold presentation of the
 
 16 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 sex motive still desired by those who have the right to determine 
 what shall be shown? That can be decided not by a study of 
 what the producers think, but by a study of the carefully thought 
 out sets of standards put forth by the representative groups of 
 people who have interested themselves in the problem. 
 
 The best organized of these sets of crystallized public opinion 
 are those of the various boards of censorship, all of which attempt 
 to keep in touch with public opinion. In considering them, 
 it must be borne in mind that they are not absolute, that no 
 board rigidly adheres to them. The Pennsylvania Board of 
 Censorship, which has been considered as representative of the 
 best in American legal control of motion pictures, has formulated 
 a very definite series of rules concerning the things that may 
 not be shown, yet time and again mention is made, even in the 
 rules themselves, that it is the spirit and not the letter thereof 
 that will be carried out in the actual process of censoring. l One 
 rule states that scenes in which the body is unduly exposed will 
 be disapproved, yet in recent showings of the "Queen of Sheba", 
 for example, the human form was repeatedly shown with an 
 unusual amount of exposure, which was apparently not con- 
 sidered "undue." The reason for the apparent departure from 
 the regulations was that the Board apparently recognized that 
 the scenes were in keeping with the historical setting and that 
 the underlying motives were remarkably free from the suggestive. 
 Morals vary with the passing of time; they are not the same in 
 all parts of the world, even in the various parts of the United 
 States. The narrowest and most poorly equipped censorship 
 official soon after entering office realizes that his judgments must 
 
 1 The standards of the Pennsylvania Board of Censors were derived from 
 those of the English censors, and in turn, have been adopted by practically 
 all American previewing officials, with only minor changes. The present 
 English standards which are given in Appendix C, are possibly too detailed 
 to allow for a wise use of individual judgment which seems essential in cen- 
 soring, but they are nevertheless in fundamental agreement with the accepted 
 American standards.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 17 
 
 vary as the time, setting, and themes of the pictures brought 
 before him vary. 
 
 All scenes or motives which are prohibited by the Pennsyl- 
 vania Board of Censors may be classed under the five headings 
 of violations of social standards in regard to sex, person, property, 
 religion and the state. l Eight out of nineteen rules deal primarily 
 with violations of sexual standards, six deal with other offenses 
 against the person, and two with offenses against property. None 
 deal exclusively with violations of religious standards, or with 
 offenses against the State. Profanity in subtitles and ridicule 
 of religious sects are forbidden in minor provisions of rules which 
 have to do mainly with other subjects. The State seems to be 
 almost entirely unprotected, for the only provisions made in 
 its behalf are the one which prohibits stories or scenes which 
 hold up to ridicule or reproach races and other social groups, 
 and might therefore incite riots, and that which forbids pictures 
 dealing with counterfeiting. The emphasis is almost entirely 
 on questions of sex and physical safety, with private property 
 running a poor third in the race for protection. 
 
 The basis for these working standards of the Pennsylvania 
 Board of Censors is Section 6 of the censorship act passed 
 May 15, 1915. This section provides that the Board shall 
 approve all films which are "moral and proper; and shall dis- 
 approve such as are sacrilegious, obscene, indecent, or immoral, ; 
 or such as tend in the judgtnent of the Board to debase or corrupt * 
 morals." * 
 
 Attention is called to the fact that the legal statement in the 
 above quotation of what should not be permitted to be shown 
 on the screen is nothing new in the history of American legisla- 
 tion, or that of any other civilized nation. Certain acts which 
 have been deemed detrimental to the welfare of the group have 
 always been tabu. This country has always considered that 
 
 1 For purposes of comparison with the standards of other organizations, 
 the Pennsylvania rules are quoted in full in Appendix D. 
 
 1 Pennsylvania State Board of Censors, Rules and Standards, Harrisburg, 
 1918, p. 4.
 
 18 MOTION PICT. URES 
 
 which is "sacrilegious, obscene, indecent and immoral" or 
 anything which might lead to such conduct, to be harmful to 
 group welfare. In every state, city or county of the United 
 States, irrespective of whether a censorship act is in force, the 
 police officials have full power to regulate conduct not in accor- 
 dance with the above provision. The only thing new about the 
 act is that it provides a separate body of officials to deal with a 
 specific problem of conduct, instead of leaving the entire field 
 to the already existing authorities. 
 
 The important point for the present discussion, however, is 
 not that a new official body has been created, but that there is 
 general agreement, crystallized in the laws of our nation, on 
 what should and what should not be permitted to be presented 
 to the public. There is no place in the Union where any picture 
 which is grossly immoral or sacrilegious cannot be immediately 
 
 suppressed under existing legislation. But existing legislation 
 does not define in most cases just what is immoral or sacrilegious, 
 and that is one of the things that the law cannot do for the 
 reason that there is no rigid and even temporarily unchanging 
 classification of such acts possible. Admitting this point, 
 realizing that morals are the expression of group opinion, we must 
 consequently form judgment concerning the existing type of 
 motion picture on the basis of what are the generally accepted 
 social standards of today. 
 
 The opinion of the Pennsylvania Board of Censorship in its 
 bare outlines is that anything which tends to break down the 
 family in its present form is included in its legal instructions as 
 to what not to permit. The portraying of suggestive nudeness, 
 prostitution, assaults upon women with immoral intent, and 
 other sex irregularities is believed to have such a tendency. 
 Similarly, scenes which show gruesome situations, murders, 
 stabbing, chloroforming, the inflicting of other personal injuries 
 are disapproved, especially if prolonged beyond the limits neces- 
 sary to the continuity of the play. The illegal destruction of 
 property by burning or wrecking, and wrongful appropriation of 
 property must also be shown only when necessary to the action 
 of the picture. The Board seriously doubts whether it is ever
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 19 
 
 necessary to show the "modus operandi of "criminals" 
 in such detail as to be easily imitated. Sacrilege and the 
 ridicule of funerals, morgues, houses of ill fame, hospitals, and 
 the like, for purposes of slapstick comedy is also interpreted as 
 tending to debase public morals. These minute yet flexible 
 regulations are an attempt by an official body to interpret the 
 will of the legislators who framed the bill and the people who 
 have chosen them for office. Are they correct interpretations? 
 A series of studies which will be discussed in a later chapter 
 was made, beginning in 1916 under the direction of the Civics 
 Department of the General Federation of Women's Clubs. 
 The women who interested themselves in these surveys must be 
 considered as having social standards which are largely in accord 
 with those of the general public, since the membership in the 
 clubs is representative of the middle and upper strata of our 
 population. At that time there were approximately two million 
 members in the Federation, and the ideals of these two million 
 women are largely representative of those of their families and 
 closer friends. The classifications of pictures into good, bad 
 and not worth while were made with practically the same bases 
 for judgment as those used by the Pennsylvania Board of Censors, 
 the main variation being as will be noticed later, the fact that 
 the Women's Clubs did not express their ideas in as specific 
 terminology as did the Board of Censors. The fundamental 
 principles were remarkably similar. 
 
 The Women's Co-operative Alliance of Minneapolis, Minne- 
 sota, in an investigation of the Minneapolis motion picture 
 houses in September, 1920, made use of the Women's Clubs' plan 
 of procedure, but in adapting it to their own needs and in making 
 the points for investigation more specific, they practically 
 duplicated the standards in use by the Pennsylvania Board. 
 Again, the only difference between the two was the fact that 
 one was more detailed than the other. 
 
 We may take the results of almost any of the numer- 
 ous investigations, including those by the National Board of 
 Review which claims carefully to have sounded public opinion
 
 20 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 in the formation of its standards, which have been made of 
 motion pictures, and invariably find that the acts and themes 
 considered undesirable are, with rare and minor exceptions, 
 fundamentally the same. l The various boards of censorship 
 eliminate and approve the same scenes and pictures, though 
 occasionally some producer points with glee to a glaring incon- 
 sistency between the judgments of two boards, which, after all, 
 is only to be expected when the various elements of the situation 
 are taken into consideration. Women's Clubs, censorship 
 officials, newspapers and other publications, ministerial associa- 
 tions, and the industry itself are united in principle. Any. trade 
 journal editor, any producer, any exhibitor will indignantly 
 deny that he has any desire to" advocate, produce or show any- 
 thing which will tend to corrupt the morals of the people, though 
 occasionally one will admit that it sometimes has to be done 
 in order to compete with others whose ideals are not so high 
 as his own and keep his own box office receipts on a paying basis, 
 in spite of his higher personal standards of belief. 
 
 Since a common basis of principle has been established through 
 a demonstration of the general acceptance of fundamentally 
 similar ideals, it is now possible to discuss investigations of the 
 content of motion pictures in an effort to determine its agreement 
 with or variation from the established base. 
 
 1 Much material issued by the National Board of Review, 70 Fifth Avenue, 
 New York City, has been considered in the study of its standards. Since 
 this has been in the form of pamphlets and scattered mimeographed sheets, 
 it seems inadvisable to give specific references. It is sufficient to say that its 
 standards are for practical purposes the same as those already quoted, namely, 
 those of the National Association of the Motion Picture Industry, and these 
 of the Pennsylvania State Board of Censors. The original material may be 
 obtained from the Board upon request.
 
 I 
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 21 
 
 III 
 
 CONFORMITY OF MOTION PICTURES TO THE ACCEPTED 
 SOCIAL STANDARDS 
 
 DURING the one year period from the first of November, 1917, 
 until the first of December, 1918, in the city of Chicago, in 
 which city practically the same pictures are exhibited as in any 
 other city in the United States, the acting censor deleted 
 55,604 feet of film from that submitted to him for approval, or a 
 total of 974 subjects. The brief official statement of the reasons 
 for the deletions is given in the following table, as is the relative 
 frequency of their occurrence : * 
 
 NUMBER OF 
 
 CAUSES OF 
 
 
 
 SUBJECTS 
 
 ELIMINATION 
 
 FT. DELETED 
 
 PER CENT. 
 
 467 
 
 Unlawful 
 
 31,040 
 
 47.9 
 
 220 
 
 Immoral 
 
 14,135 
 
 22.5 
 
 183 
 
 Indecent (Comedy) 
 
 6,539 
 
 18.77 
 
 42 
 
 Indecent (Drama) 
 
 1,978 
 
 4.2 
 
 36 
 
 Nude 
 
 1,093 
 
 3.0 
 
 17 
 
 Obscene 
 
 400 
 
 1.7 
 
 6 
 
 Race 
 
 254 
 
 0.6 
 
 3 
 
 Creed' 
 
 165 
 
 0.3 
 
 While the assigned causes of the eliminations are extremely 
 vague, it is possible to see in them the previously mentioned 
 sexual, property, personal, religious and state offenses. Com- 
 bining the immoral, indecent (both in comedies and in dramas), 
 nude and obscene, we find that over 50.0 per cent, of the offenses 
 were against sexual standards. Offenses against race and creed 
 are in a very small minority, as is to be expected from our pre- 
 vious analysis of standards. The term "unlawful" is the most 
 vague of all, but although it has been impossible to obtain any 
 
 1 Chicago Motion Picture Commission, Report, September 1920, p. 183.
 
 22 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 exact statement of what is meant, it is not difficult to reach the 
 conclusion that it refers to scenes which would be likely to incite 
 to unlawful acts through the portrayal of crimes and brutality. 
 This heading includes a majority of the deleted subjects which 
 were not included under the general heading of sexual offenses. 
 At that, it is a very close second, lacking only 3 per cent, of 
 being equal to the latter type of offenses. 
 
 A committee .of four hundred women from the Chicago Political 
 Equality League presented the results of what is probably the 
 most extensive, representative survey of motion pictures ever 
 completed in the United States to the New York Biennial Con- 
 vention of the General Federation of Women's Clubs. One / *1 j 
 thousand, seven hundred and sixty-five plays were surveyed. 
 About 21 per cent, of these were classed as bad, nearly 30 per 
 cent., for example, showing criminal scenes. Only 20 per cent, 
 were classed as being likely to have a positively beneficial effect 
 on the audiences. The majority, or 80 per cent., were either 
 of a harmful nature or "not worth while." 1 
 
 Surveys similar to that made by the Chicago Political Equality 
 League were made by Members of the Women's Federation in 
 Michigan, Arkansas, South Dakota, West Virginia, New York 
 
 NO. PER CENT. 
 
 1 Number of plays under observation 1765 100 
 
 Classed as good 348 20 
 
 Classed as bad 367 21 
 
 "Not worth while" 1040 59 
 
 Plays showing domestic infelicity 282 16 
 
 ' clandestine appointments 229 13 
 
 " drinking or bar room scenes 485 27 
 
 " scenes suggesting criminal acts 588 33 
 
 " gambling scenes 210 12 
 
 " " lewd actions 193 11 
 
 " objectionable close-up filming 158 9 
 
 " risque or immoral scenes 229 13 
 
 Tending to create contempt for law, etc 123 7 
 
 " " contribute to delinquency 353 20 
 
 General Federation Magazine, January, 1919, p. 13.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 23 
 
 and Rhode Island. l These were made on plans based on the 
 methods used by the Illinois organization. Mrs. Bessie Leach 
 Priddy, Chairman of the Federation's Department of Civics 
 in 1919 is authority for the statement that these latter investiga- 
 tions "practically corroborated" the previous findings. 2 It is 
 therefore unnecessary to quote from material which, gathered 
 under very nearly the same conditions as the Illinois material, 
 leads to identical conclusions. 
 
 A survey ui sixty- two motion picture houses in Minneapolis in 
 September, 1920, by the Women's Co -Operative Alliance while 
 not so extensive as that by the Women's Federation, is probably 
 more accurate and reliable in that it was completed by two 
 workers who were acquainted with the methods of previous 
 surveys, such as that by the Chicago Political Equality League, 
 and who had used all possible precautions to standardize their 
 judgments. 3 The features which they decided upon as ob- 
 jectionable were elaborations of the features which the Federa- 
 tion considered objectionable. A comparative study of their 
 judgments later showed that they had been reasonably successful 
 in reducing the personal element to a minimum. Since, however, 
 their investigation was of an intensive rather than an extensive 
 nature, its results cannot be considered representative or of any 
 great value in a general discussion of motion pictures unless 
 discussed from the point of view of their agreement with other 
 material of a more general nature. In other words, so limited a 
 sample may fairly be used only in conjunction with other sam- 
 ples. 
 
 Although made about five years after the Illinois survey, a 
 noteworthy correlation is readily observable between the results 
 obtained by the two investigations. The Illinois study founcK 
 that 27 per cent, of the plays showed drinking or bar roomy 
 
 1 General Federation of Women's Clubs, Report of Fourteenth Biennial \ 
 Covention, p. 411, p. 450. 
 
 1 General Federation Magazine, January, 1919, p. 13. 
 8 Women's Co-Operative Alliance, Inc. The Better Movie Movement, 
 Publication No. 38, Minneapolis, Minn., Feb. 1921.
 
 24 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 scenes; the Minneapolis study found that in 19 per cent, of the 
 plays which came under their observation there were objectionable 
 drinking or bar room scenes. The former found that 9 per cent, 
 contained objectionable close-up scenes; the latter found 12 per 
 cent, contained objectionable close-up filming. The former 
 found that 11 per cent, showed lewd actions; the latter found 12 
 per cent, to be the corresponding figure for this item. J Other 
 items are possibly not entirely comparable due to the different 
 working bases of the investigators. It is sufficiently evident, 
 however, even to the casual observer that there is no signifi- 
 cant inconsistency between the two reports. 
 
 The above quoted examples of investigations of motion 
 pictures confirm not only each other in their conclusions, but 
 also bear out numerous less pretentious investigations and a 
 large amount of the individual criticism which has been directed 
 / at the industry for the admitted purpose of many of its mem- 
 bers of giving the people the things they believe they want, 
 irrespective of the social effects of such a course of action. 
 
 PERCENT. PERCENT. 
 1 DID THE PLAYS SHOW YES NO 
 
 Habit-forming drug using made attractive 4 96 
 
 Objectionable bed-room scenes 4 96 
 
 Criminal methods in a way to give instructive ideas. . . 6 94 
 
 Prolonged objectionable love scenes 6 94 
 
 Gambling made alluring or attractive 8 92 
 
 Race friction 9 91 
 
 Any objectionable close-up filming 12 88 
 
 Any risque or lewd actions 12 88 
 
 Religion or law ridiculed or held in contempt 12 88 
 
 Any irreverence depicted 14 86 
 
 Suggestive or objectionable exposure of person 16 84 
 
 Gruesome subjects or death scenes, objectionable 16 84 
 
 Objectionable drinking or bar room scenes 19 - 84 
 
 Infidelity or disregard of marriage vows 20 80 
 
 Underworld scenes or objectionable dancing 24 76 
 
 Any obscenity, immorality or vulgarity 36 65 
 
 Any sex problem handled in an objectionable manner. . . 8 92 
 
 Women's Co-Operative Alliance, Inc., Better Movie Movement, Publication 
 No. 38, Minneapolis, Minn., February, 1921.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 25 
 
 The Byiend Doctor Clifford G. Twombley, of Lancaster, 
 Pa., is without doubt one of the leading churchmen who have 
 done anything of value on the subject of motion pictures. It is 
 his estimate that between 80 per cent, and 90 per cent, of all the 
 children in this country under twelve years of age are reached by 
 motion pictures. It was under his direction that the Ministerial 
 Association of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, investigated conditions 
 in that city from January 8 to February 9, 1917. A group of 
 twenty-two ministers of various denominations viewed 134 
 different films which were shown in Lancaster during this period. 
 Many of these pictures were seen by from two to six different 
 investigators, and in cases where judgments varied, the picture 
 was always given the benefit of the doubt. Of the 134 films 
 examined, 65 were found to be "good," 31 to be "bad," and 38 
 to be "indifferent." 1 It will be noticed that the Ministerial > 
 Association acted favorably on a larger percentage than did 
 the women's associations previously mentioned. In so far as 
 violations of accepted social standards were found, there seems 
 to be a correlation, though not to any remarkable extent, with 
 the previous reports. 
 
 1 Of the 134 films examined: 
 65 were found to be good. 
 31 were found to be bad. 
 38 were found to be indifferent. 
 30 pictures showed marital infidelity, bigamy, illicit love, immorality or 
 
 lust, in unnecessary or objectionable ways. 
 26 pictures had one or more murders or suicides. 
 19 pictures snowed intemperate drinking or drunkenness in them. 
 14 pictures showed robbery or theft, and more or less of their methods. 
 12 pictures showed gun play. 
 
 10 pictures showed gambling, both among the rich and the poor. 
 7 pictures showed the low resorts and habitues of the underworld. 
 7 pictures showed poisoning, chloroforming, the giving of knockout drops 
 
 or the taking of drugs. 
 
 5 pictures showed kidnapping or blackmailing. 
 
 Ministerial Association of Lancaster, Pa., Report of the Moving Picture 
 Shows Investigation, Lancaster, Pa., 1917.
 
 26 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 As a result of Doctor Twombley's activities in fighting what 
 he termed the "motion picture evil", he was invited in 1920 to 
 Baltimore to study the films then being shown, to prove or dis- 
 prove the statements of a motion picture exhibitor who said 
 that if conditions could be shown to be as evil at a number of 
 Baltimore theatres, as certain reformers claimed, he would 
 forfeit a sum of money to any designated charity and devote his 
 efforts to remedying the evil. The results of the consequent 
 hurried investigation in Baltimore were published in the form of 
 brief synopses of the stories of thirteen films viewed by Doctor 
 Twombley. He admitted at the outset that 50 or 60 per cent, 
 of the shows were good or harmless, and visited only those with 
 suggestive titles. At that he did not have time to visit seven 
 pictures with titles such as "Sinners", "Shame", "Camille 
 of the Yukon", "Should a Husband Forgive", "The Woman 
 Gives", "In Search of a Sinner", and "Midnight Gambols." 
 That the titles are not entirely misleading is evidenced by the 
 fact that of the above pictures, the second was condemned 
 in toto by the Pennsylvania Board, while the others had 49, 15, 
 24, 15, 37 and 8 eliminations made respectively before they 
 could be shown in that state. 
 
 Since the method of judging a picture by a synopsis of the 
 story is somewhat different from the methods previously dis- 
 cussed, it may be of value to quote from Doctor Twombley in 
 regard to one or two of the plays he viewed. The story of one 
 reads as follows : "A man marries a prudish wife who repulses his 
 amorous advances and caresses. He then meets a former girl 
 acquaintance who tries to win him away by a purely physical 
 
 appeal After the girl has succeeded, the wife divorces 
 
 the man, who marries the girl. Then the first wife, who over- 
 hears a conversation of two women about her, determines to win 
 back the man again by the same purely physical, sensuous appeal, 
 and as she succeeds, the second wife loses him. An effeminate 
 violinist then makes love to the second wife in a sensual way 
 and wins her. Twelve eliminations were made in this film by 
 the Maryland board and twenty-two were made by the Penn-
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 27 
 
 sylvania board. It was distributed in its uncensored form 
 throughout 44 States of the Union." l 
 
 Or again: "A girl is kidnapped from the house of a rich 
 American in Egypt by an Egyptian 'nobleman' whom she has 
 refused to marry, and carried to a ' house of infamy. ' A young 
 dragoman, the butler in the house, discovers the kidnapping 
 and goes after the girl to the ' house of infamy, ' where he dances 
 in a sensuous scene with a prostitute in his arms, whom he finally 
 locks in a chest. So he is able to rescue the girl just as she, half 
 clad, is being forcibly caressed in a most sensual manner on a 
 bed in another room in the house of the Egyptian. Later on he 
 kills the Egyptian in revenge and the rich American marries the 
 girl. 
 
 " (NOTE The Maryland Board of Censors saved this picture 
 from being even far worse by four most necessary eliminations. 
 But the film goes practically uncensored in its worst form 
 throughout the country, except in Maryland, Pennsylvania, 
 Ohio and Kansas.)" Florida, New York and Virginia have 
 since been added to the list of States which have censorship. 
 
 These synopses were picked at random from the thirteen 
 reported in the Baltimore Sun. They are neither better nor 
 worse than the others. While they must not be considered as 
 typical of the majority of films released for public showing, it 
 must be remembered that they are representative of a relatively 
 large number of plays shown in the districts which have censor- 
 
 1 Apparently the motion picture interests do not consider such pictures 
 undesirable for to the best of Doctor Twombley's knowledge the forfeit was 
 never paid. The wording of the challenge which appeared in an advertisemens 
 in the Baltimore News was in part as follows: 
 
 "If you can point to a single motion-picture house in Baltimore which 
 shows the class of plays that you describe, I shall consider it my profound 
 duty to co-operate with you in a vigorous effort to prevent further exhibition 
 
 of such films If it be proved that any picture we show or have shown" 
 
 (in certain specified theatres) "might have a tendency to corrupt the Public 
 Morals, I will give $1,000 to any charitable institution you may designate." 
 Quoted by Howard A. Kelly, in "The Movie Evil," in the Supplement to The 
 Christian Citizen, Towson, Md., Vol. IV, No. 11, November, 1920.
 
 28 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 ship, and representative of a larger number shown where no 
 legalized censorship exists. 
 
 An analogy which is frequently made is one comparing a movie 
 with a book or work of art, and arguing therefrom that that 
 which is permissible in print and art is also permissible on the 
 screen. This contention has been well answered by Dr. Ellis P. 
 Oberholtzer in the following quotation. "I have often been 
 told, when I have protested against a particular scene in a film, 
 that this is but a transcript of what is described in a newspaper or 
 a magazine. Conditions are very different; analogy is false. 
 A printed line may tell of the birth of a child; a photographic 
 depiction of the process of childbirth is another matter. An 
 assault upon a woman may be alluded to in print; it may, indeed, 
 be the climax of a story. But to photograph the last details 
 of such an attack and reproduce each movement in the graphic 
 method of the movie is to offend good taste, and often good 
 morals." 1 In accordance with this line of thought it is not valid 
 to contend that since stories much more frank in their basis of 
 sex motive are generally conceded as good literature and a 
 desirable form of human achievement, therefore motion pictures 
 of a similar nature are to be fostered rather than repressed. 
 
 The National Board of Review has always maintained that 
 its policy was to base its standards for reviewing on public 
 opinion, and that it constantly kept in touch with public opinion 
 through correspondence and other means of investigation. One 
 of the means of investigation recently employed was a question- 
 naire which was sent to eight hundred leading theatre owners 
 in different parts of the country. A mimeographed report 
 issued by the National Board in March, 1921, stated that 64 
 replies from owners or managers of 104 theatres had been re- 
 ceived and analyzed. 2 An attempt several months later to dis- 
 ; cover whether any more replies had been received resulted in the 
 j information that only two or three additional replies had come 
 
 1 Oberholtzer, Dr. E. P., What are the Movies Making of Our Children? 
 World's Work, Vol. XLI, No. 3, January, 1921. 
 
 3 Mimeographed material in the hands of the author.
 
 : 
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 29 
 
 in since the issuance of the original report. In explanation of 
 this small percentage of replies it was stated in a letter from the 
 National Board that "it is our experience with exhibitors that 
 only a rather small proportion can be counted upon to reply to 
 questionnaires." If this were the only instance of reticence on 
 the part of the industry in furnishing information it would not 
 be remarkable, but there is no question that for some reason or 
 other a policy of silence has been generally adopted. 
 
 For example, a test questionnaire was sent out by the author 
 during the fall of 1921 to about 150 exhibitors in a mid-western 
 city. Every known house was sent a copy, and there seems to 
 be no doubt but that they reached their destination for only one 
 was returned by the Post Office on account of wrong address. 
 Five replies were received, and two of these did not contain the 
 requested information. The questionnaire, however, had been 
 carefully prepared so that no information was requested which 
 was not obtainable in similar form through any of the trade 
 journals, or which could in any way be considered a trade secret. 
 A short time later a state division of the Motion Picture Theatre 
 Owners of America wrote and requested that the author, to 
 quote verbatim, "kindly give more information as to just who, 
 what and why" the information was desired. It developed 
 later that managers of the important theatres have orders 
 not to fill out any questionnaires, but to send them to- 
 headquarters, as a matter of policy. Had fair answers beea 
 received to the first circulars, others with requests for more 
 important information would have been sent out. As it was, 
 such methods of investigation were shown to be fruitless, for 
 even though subsequent replies might have been received in 
 significant numbers it would have been dangerous to place much ./"' 
 trust in them clue to the suspicious turn of mind of the owners 
 and managers. 
 
 To return to the questionnaire sent out by the National Board, 
 if the limited number of replies is kept in mind in order to prevent 
 the over-estimation of its value, the results may be used to 
 corroborate the findings of other investigations. It must also 
 be kept in mind that since it was issued by the National Board
 
 30 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 of Review on information volunteered by the motion picture 
 industry itself, the chances are in favor of any existing bias being 
 to the credit of the industry. 
 
 Only fifteen of the sixty-three owners and managers replied 
 that they had received any complaints from their patrons con- 
 cerning the moral tone of the pictures they exhibited. Fifty-five 
 objections were raised by thirty-seven individuals to whom 
 questionnaires were sent, exclusive of those objections which 
 related to sex-suggestive titles, to serials and to bathing-girl 
 comedies. Twenty-three of the fifty-five objections were 
 against the so-called sex pictures. The others were against 
 "pictures with excessive brutality and killing," the showing of 
 the underworld and crime, "nudity, vulgarity or salaciousness, " 
 the vampire and "over-done love scenes," and a total of seven 
 objections against propaganda, costume, highbrow society, 
 sacrilegiousness, dope, illegitimacy and "cheap" pictures. In 
 answer to a later question specific pictures against which objec- 
 tions existed in the patronage of the theatres in question were 
 mentioned. As was to be expected, no one picture was given 
 any preponderance of votes, since there were only sixty-five 
 mentioned at all. "Idols of Clay" was mentioned nine times, 
 "Midnight Madness" six times, "Sex", "Prisoners of Love" 
 and "Outside the Law" were mentioned four times. Two were 
 mentioned three times, seven two times and forty-eight one 
 time. It might be imagined that since such a wide range of 
 choice existed that the objections were vague or ill-founded. 
 This does not necessarily follow, for the total number of pictures 
 mentioned was only a small part of the total shown during the 
 six months covered by the investigation, and other investigations 
 have tended to show that pictures containing objectionable 
 features are not few. 
 
 The question of objectionable titles to pictures which are 
 
 possibly otherwise unobjectionable was also raised, though the 
 
 practice of attaching "box office titles" to the picturizations of 
 
 I innocent stories is too well known to require much comment. 
 
 Changing the title of Sir J. M. Barrie's "The Admirable Crich-
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 31 
 
 ton" to "Male and Female" is one of many examples of this 
 practice. There has been extreme frankness in the reasons 
 assigned by the industry for the changes as is evidenced by 
 several editorial discussions in trade journals concerning the 
 relative drawing power of the titles of well-known books in 
 comparison with the more startling titles tacked onto their 
 picturization by the producers. Forty-three exhibitors told the 
 National Board that they believed objectionable titles were being 
 given pictures, while thirteen replied that this was not true. 
 Forty -nine different pictures were named as examples by thirty 
 exhibitors. "Passion" received thirteen votes; "Forbidden 
 Fruit", eleven; "Passion Fruit", nine; "Sex", eight; "The 
 Forbidden Thing", seven; "The Devil's Pass Key", "The 
 Killer" and "The Passionate Pilgrim" three each. Ten were 
 mentioned two times and thirty-one were mentioned only once. 
 In answer to the question, "Is the sex element too large?" 
 thirty- two answered "yes" and twenty- three answered "no". 
 The answers, "Not too much for our patrons but perhaps too 
 much for the so-called reformers" and "No, neither motion 
 pictures, literature nor life can be separated from the ideas of 
 'sex'" show why much of the undesirable element remains in 
 the films of today, and will remain until removed by some power 
 superior to the individuals' desires for gain. Thirty pictures 
 were characterized as "sex pictures", including "Sex", mentioned 
 thirteen times, "Midsummer Madness", mentioned nine times, 
 "Passion", mentioned four times, and "Idols of Clay" and 
 "Prisoners of Love", mentioned three and two times respec- 
 tively. Six were mentioned two times and twenty, one time. 
 Twenty-two of the exhibitors claimed that their audiences were 
 larger when "sex pictures" were being shown, ten claimed that 
 they were below normal at such times, and nineteen thought it 
 made little or no difference. Thirty-five thought the National 
 Board of Review should be more stringent in regard to their 
 rulings on "sex pictures" and nineteen thought they were 
 sufficiently severe in their rulings. In the entire summarizing 
 report of the National Board of Review there is no evidence to
 
 32 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 show that motion pictures are considered by the industry itself 
 to be in accord with the accepted social standards. 
 
 It is perhaps worthy of noting that the investigations which 
 have been considered are not representative of those against 
 which much well directed criticism has been aimed on account 
 of the apparently haphazard method of procedure and the use of 
 questionable standards of conduct as the bases on which the 
 judgments were built. An example of this type, which may be 
 entirely accurate but is nevertheless inconclusive and likely 
 to raise suspicions of bias, is one which was brought to the atten- 
 tion of the Committee on Education of the House of Representa- 
 tives at its hearings on House Bill 456 for the creation of a federal 
 motion picture commission, in 1916, by Doctor W. F. Crafts, 
 superintendent of the International Reform Bureau. According 
 to Doctor Crafts a state superintendent of schools of West 
 Virginia studied the "real character of current motion pictures, " 
 and found that 25 per cent, of the pictures were "good" and 
 /""not bad", and that 75 per cent, were "bad" and "very bad." 
 Cigarettes were shown in 35 per cent., drink in 50 per cent., and 
 gun play and murder in 50 per cent. "Deceit, intrigue, jealousy, 
 or treachery was a leading feature in at least 40 per cent, of the 
 programs presented." 1 
 
 In accordance with the results of the surveys which 
 we have reviewed, we may say without exaggeration that 
 approximately 20 per cent, of the films shown in this 
 country tend at least in part to have a harmulf effect if 
 moving picture audiences are in any way influenced by 
 that which is continually put before them. The fact that 
 possibly 50 per cent, of the motion picture films are likely to 
 have some beneficial effect does not prove that the harmful 
 plays should be disregarded. Violations of standards of conduct 
 which must in the nature of things result in similar conduct are 
 frequent under existing conditions; more frequent than is 
 
 1 House of Representatives, Hearings before the Committee on Education, 
 January 13, 1916, p. 9.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 33 
 
 necessary, as has been shown by the fact that boards of censorship 
 have eliminated many in the districts where legal provision is 
 made for such work. Consujejable^weight must be given to 
 
 the peculiar circumstance that the motion picture 
 
 one of the largest, manufacturing ihcriistries~m~the" counting, 
 
 "has not fought facts with facts? No ao^tfate^reiiu^ation oitne 
 rpsnlts ^ yLJtha^yariori3i, inW^tig^ : " has ev( -' r t> een offered. 
 t'ntil present conditions are altered it cannot be offered. The 
 
 industry cannot afford to become entangled in an argument in 
 which its members would be compelled to argue against their 
 personal beliefs and the facts in order to show that their choice 
 of plays, the result of a box office policy, is not in a large per- 
 centage of cases contrary to the accepted social standards. 
 
 6 /- 
 V
 
 34 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 IV 
 
 EFFECT OF MOTION PICTURES ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE 
 
 IT should be sufficient in order to indicate the harmful effects 
 of motion pictures to point out the number of people who attend 
 and the kind of picture they see, as has just been done, but in 
 order to emphasize the practical consequences of motion pictures 
 some evidence should be cited to demonstrate that the effective- 
 ness of the discussion does not depend solely on a belief in 
 determinism. All of the observations cited below are of children, 
 for the scientific, observational and experimental attitude towards 
 the problems of motion pictures has not been utilized in dealing 
 with adults, and we must therefore establish our point in so far 
 as they are concerned, using the deterministic doctrine as the 
 foundation. With regard to children, however, there is an 
 abundance of evidence on which to base estimates of the desira- 
 bility or undesirability of the films which are now being 
 exhibited. J 
 
 1 "Some of the most graphic accounts of the influence of pictures have 
 come from personal interviews with offenders, where in detail the vivid nature 
 of the mental process is exposed. Nor do we have to turn to offenders merely 
 to prove this point. Most of us have had like experiences. A prominent 
 educator, a man of active mind and purity of thought, tells me that one of 
 his main regrets is that he once saw a certain pornographic sketch. It was 
 indelibly impressed. Offenders we find, .... have sometimes been fairly 
 obsessed and impelled by the character of pictures seen. In this matter, 
 too, the pervasion of the sex element makes the chance of future representa- 
 tion all the stronger on account of natural impulses in that direction. The 
 combination of sex offenses with other criminality forms an unusually virulent 
 admixture for later mental depiction. 
 
 "When it comes to motion pictures we have added elements of force for 
 the production of either good or bad. Not only a single event, but chapters 
 from life histories are depicted. Not alone is one action or posture depicted, 
 but there is added all of the motor phenomena active through a period of time. 
 The act is not suggested ; every detail of it is made clear. The breaking open
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 35 
 
 The motion picture interests do not hesitate to lay claim to 
 being benefactors of humanity in that they are, through their 
 industrial and other educational films, broadening the horizons 
 of many who would otherwise be limited by lack of facilities 
 for obtaining information more directly; that they are stirring 
 many to action through their illustrations of ideal life and 
 achievements; that the numerous religious pictures, and others, 
 are sermons more powerful than any spoken word from the 
 
 of a safe, the holding up of a train, the effort at suicide are all presented in 
 such fashion that it is bound to recur as a memory picture of detailed events, 
 if there is any tendency or opportunity for its mental reproduction. Added 
 force comes from the concrete issues which are represented. 
 
 "We have had much evidence, sometimes in remarkablw ways, that moving 
 pictures may be stimulating to the sex instinct. We should expect pictures 
 of love-making and similar scenes to have this effect on young adults or older 
 adolescents, but we have very strikingly heard of it in children. The effect 
 is not only felt at the moment, but also there is the establishment of memory 
 pictures which come up at other quiet times, such as when the individual is in 
 bed. We have found that bad sex habits sometimes center around these 
 pictures. In some instances a very definite mental conflict ensues, with 
 production of delinquency along other lines. 
 
 There can be no fair consideration of the whole subject of moving pictures 
 unless we remember that, after all, the amount of delinquency produced by 
 them corresponds but slightly to the immense number of pictures which are 
 constantly shown. This partly tends to show the innocuousness of the greater 
 number of these pictures, but it also brings us back to our old question of 
 personal equation. Some individuals are susceptible to pictorial suggestions 
 and others are not. However, there is no excuse for showing pictures which 
 damage the morals of any one. 
 
 The main hope for the prevention of these undesirable effects will be foun" 
 in rigorous censorship of perverting pictures, and in radical prosecution o* 
 those who produce and deal in obscene and other demoralizing pictoria' 
 representations. Never have we heard one word indicating that bad effects 
 have arisen from representations that could in any way be interpreted as 
 productions of art. The type of thing we mean is altogether unsavory, and 
 obviously manufactured for its appeal to the passions, or to other unhealthy 
 interests." Healy, William, The Individual Delinquent, p. 307ff. See p. 241ff 
 for cases showing effect of mental imagery.
 
 36 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 pulpit or platform. l The trade journals are at present boasting 
 that the industry can become a power in politics through the 
 judicious use of the screen. One of their strongest arguments 
 against legalized censorship is the influence which they say will 
 be wielded by censorship boards through the elimination of 
 scenes which might create an atmosphere unfavorable to the 
 party in control. In view of these claims it would seem to be a 
 difficult matter for the industry to defend itself by denying the 
 effect from the films which they are not so proud to own. 
 
 There is no lack of authenticated individual instances of 
 
 1 1 misconduct resulting from the suggestion or instruction of 
 
 |] motion pictures. "Michigan's experience tallies with that of 
 
 Illinois as a revelation of the need of better motion pictures for 
 
 /all theatres in the state. A survey of the situation in Detroit 
 was made by the city federation with astonishing results. Vice 
 and crime were increasing so rapidly that the judge of the 
 juvenile court was led to investigate the habits of juvenile 
 offenders appearing before him for the first time. In an open 
 letter to the Chairman of Civics of the Michigan Federation 
 the judge said that in a large percentage of cases the suggestion 
 had come to these young offenders through the motion picture." 2 
 This quotation is taken from a talk by Mrs. Albert E. Bulson, 
 part of which was included in the report of the Fourteenth 
 Biennial Convention of the General Federation of Women's 
 Clubs, and indicates that a direct relation does exist between 
 
 1 The National Board of Review of Motion Pictures considers as one of it 3 
 most important duties the issuing of selected lists of pictures having educa- 
 tional and moral value. Mr. Orrin G. Cox, Secretary of the National Com- 
 mittee for Better Films, argues that since a large percentage of the patrons 
 of motion picture theatres are under twenty-one years of age and therefore 
 readily subject of suggestion, much good could be done through constructive 
 measures for the improvement of programs by means of co-operation on the 
 part of the community with the local exhibitors. From a carbon copy of an 
 article by Mr. Cox which was sent to the author as an argument against 
 censorship by the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures. 
 
 2 Report of the Fourteenth Biennial Convention of the Genreal Federation of 
 Women's Clubs, 1918, p. 450.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 37 
 
 motion pictures and crime. Another quotation from the same 
 talk gives an example of a less frequent but none the less impor- 
 tant type of effect of the lower order of pictures. "To my 
 knowledge, " says Mrs. Bulson, "a young school boy after having 
 witnessed a film called 'Mothers, Protect Your Daughters', 
 secured a certain drug and asked another boy to go with him 
 and secure a couple of girls to experiment upon with the drug. 
 The mother of one of the boys obtained the bottle and gave it 
 to a physician who verified the statement made by the boy. 
 This film might be used as a warning to a girl, but I question the 
 advisability of exhibiting the methods used by white slavers to 
 our adolescent youth." The first quotation referred to the possi- 
 ble ejfects from the general suggestive influence of motion pic- 
 tures; the latter, to a more direct influence, that of instruction 
 in method. 
 
 A report issued in 1920 by the National Board of Review 
 presents the results obtained by a questionnaire which was sent 
 to probation officers in cities in the United States of over ten 
 thousand population which had juvenile courts. This report is 
 entitled "Motion Pictures Not Guilty," and claims to be a 
 verdict based on the questionnaire in relation to motion pictures 
 and juvenile delinquency. The verdict is that there is a "sur- 
 prising lack of evidence of direct responsibility of motion pictures 
 for juvenile delinquencies." Forty-two replies were received. 
 Of these forty -two, twenty-seven asserted that to their knowledge 
 "motion pictures were not directly responsible, to any appre- 
 ciable extent, if at all, for juvenile delinquency." Ten gave 
 no definite answer to the question of responsibility, due to a 
 lack of direct evidence to support an affirmative answer, and not 
 being willing to absolve the motion pictures entirely. Five said 
 that motion pictures were directly responsible for an appreciable 
 amount of juvenile delinquency. On the basis of these figures 
 the verdict of "not guilty" is reached. Is it justified? 
 
 If the verdict is interpreted in the strict meaning of the words 
 in which it is expressed there is sufficient evidence for its justifi- 
 cation. The report only says that motion pictures are "not 
 directly responsible" for juvenile delinquency in an appreciable
 
 38 
 
 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 number of cases, which may be true. It gives the impression to 
 the careless reader, however, that motion pictures do not enter 
 into juvenile delinquency as an appreciable factor. The title 
 of the report, "Motion Pictures Not Guilty," seems designed to 
 give this impression. Quoting from the report itself, the 
 twenty-seven probation officers who are lined up as exonerating 
 the pictures only said that "motion pictures were not directly 
 responsible, to an appreciable extent", for delinquency. The 
 ten who were non-committal on account of lack of records for 
 convicting the movies, nevertheless had a feeling that they might 
 be "sometimes directly to blame." The individual reports have 
 not been available for examination, but the statements quoted 
 are the statements on which the verdict of "not guilty" was 
 based in the whitewashing report. They are an indication of 
 its weakness. 1 
 
 The same report quotes from the cinema inquiry in Great 
 Britain and from an investigation by Mr. E. M. Barrows of 
 cases of juvenile delinquency in New York City in which the 
 "movies" were held responsible. Both of these quotations, 
 while tending to show that the "movies" cannot be held as the 
 direct cause of delinquency except in a few scattered cases, 
 refer to the "large number of cases in which the 'movies' were 
 held responsible by policemen, judge sand reformers" and to the 
 generally held opinion of those who deal with children that 
 motion pictures are an influence in the moulding of the lives of 
 their charges. If the report does nothing else, it certainly 
 establishes this last point, which, after all, needs little sub- 
 stantiation. 
 
 A more scientific piece of work is the investigation conducted 
 by the Chicago Motion Picture Commission, the results of which 
 were published in detail in September, 1920, as a part of the 
 general report of that commission. Professor Ernest W. 
 Burgess of the University of Chicago supervised the investiga- 
 tion, which was also conducted by the questionnaire method. 
 Questionnaires were sent to the teachers and principals of the 
 
 1 National Board of Review, Motion Pictures Not Guilty, New York, 1920*
 
 39 
 
 Chicago schools, and the tabulations of returns were made from 
 the reports of two hundred and twenty-three people, some of 
 whom were principals of schools having an average attendance of 
 aLout one thousand children. Only a few of the two hundred 
 twenty-three returns were made by teachers, since in many cases 
 the principals made out the questionnaires on a basis of reports 
 made to them by the teachers under them. At the committee 
 meeting at which Professor Burgess delivered his final report, 
 there were thirteen principals present, representing about thirteen 
 thousand children. This indicates that the two hundred twenty- 
 three questionnaires whose reports were tabulated represent 
 more children than would be expected had they been only the 
 returns from grade teachers. They contain only opinions, but 
 they are opinions which can be depended on as the best available, 
 coming from those who are sincerely interested in the children's 
 progress and who are in a position to observe and interpret the 
 facts. 
 
 It was found that in twelve schools of the one hundred twenty- 
 five represented by the questionnaires, the attendance of motion 
 pictures by the children was infrequent, and it is explained 
 that this infrequency was due possibly to inaccessibility of 
 motion picture houses rather than to lack of desire. One hundred 
 and twenty-five teachers reported that their children attended 
 the movies from two to four or "more times a week. Ninety 
 placed the ordinary attendance at one or two times a week. In 
 so far as the effect of motion pictures on school work was con- 
 cerned, thirfeen teachers reported "no effect," while twenty- 
 eight declared the effect to be predominantly "educational". 
 Five said the effect depended on the film, and eighteen did not 
 answer the question. Thirty-seven believed that attendance 
 at motion pictures accelerated mental development or improved 
 the general information of the pupils. The rest of the two 
 hundred twenty-three teachers and principals believed the effect 
 of motion pictures on school children to be harmful through 
 retardation of mental powers, general interference with school 
 work, rendering the children nervous and excitable, lowering 
 vitality, and through tendency to have other undesirable effects.
 
 X**> 
 
 40 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 The information concerning the general moral effect of the 
 movies is significant when considered in the light of the atten- 
 dance figures just mentioned. Thirty-three teachers and princi- 
 pals believed that they had no moral effect, thirty-three believed 
 that it depended on the film, which is of course true, and two 
 stated that the general moral effect was good. In opposition to 
 these, fifty-one were of the opinion that the effect was "generally 
 bad," sixteen that lawlessness and disrespect were promoted, 
 sixteen that a craving for excitement was induced, nine that 
 "boy bandit" and robber games were created, and nine that the 
 "brazen, boy-struck girl" was a frequent result. All of the 
 two hundred and twenty-three not included above also believed 
 the general moral effect to be undesirable. 
 
 Direct questions were asked concerning the effect of motion 
 pictures on sex life and respect for authority. The consenus of 
 opinion was that the children became precocious about sex 
 matters, that there was a general demoralizing effect on modesty 
 and purity, that a disregard of marriage ties was fostered, and 
 that the authority of teachers and parents was materially 
 lessened. On hundred and eighty-three favored a board of 
 censors as at least a partial remedy for the situation, forty-two 
 were non-committal, and only eight favored some other plan of 
 regulation. Apparently none were in favor of allowing public 
 opinion to be the only control of the movies. 
 
 The author has personally interviewed a number of Philadel- 
 phia social workers in an attempt to make certain that there is 
 an appreciable effect of motion pictures on the people. A well- 
 defined opinion existed that there were wide-spread effects, good 
 as well as harmful, but that since the cases handled by the social 
 agencies visited in the main the cheaper houses which show the 
 more questionable films, the effect on the group observed by them 
 was possibly more harmful than otherwise. Speaking for the 
 country as a whole, this is probably not true, and there is little 
 reason to doubt that the total good effect is greater than the 
 total evil effect, for we have seen that at least three-fourths of 
 the films do not show flagrant violations of social standards.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 41 
 
 It is difficult to estimate the benefits which we reap from our'' 
 contacts with the movies; it is much easier to point out evils, and 
 it is much easier to call attention to the evils than to arouse 
 public interest in the advantages, which do not hold the attention \ 
 without effort. A distorted perspective results, but however 
 much the perspective is distorted, there is some actuality in the 
 view presented to us. Motion pictures do influence those who 
 see them, possibly not always directly, but by gradually forming 
 or altering ideals and their consequent conduct.
 
 42 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 V 
 
 THE NATIONAL BOARD OF REVIEW OF MOTION PICTURES 
 
 , IN 1907 and 1908 two investigations were made of the moving 
 picture situation in New York City, one by a joint committee of 
 the People's Institute and the Women's Municipal League, the 
 other by the city police commissioner. According to subsequent 
 reports of the National Board of Review, "in both cases the 
 findings demonstrated that, in spite of some defects in subjects 
 and treatment, the large majority of films were wholesome." 
 The exhibitors appealed to the People's Institute for aid in 
 cleaning up motion pictures in answer to insistent public de- 
 mands for improvement, and the plans resulting from their 
 /consultations have materialized into the present National Board 
 of Review of Motion Pictures. 
 
 The basis of the National Board are the principles that the 
 
 screen has a right to freedom, that there can be no absolute 
 
 agreement of opinion as to what is "precisely moral and what is 
 
 precisely immoral, " or as to "where questions of taste and morals 
 
 overlap," that public opinion, "which is the compound of all 
 
 tastes and all ideas of morals is the only competent judge of the 
 
 screen, " that there can be no proper functioning of public opinion 
 
 unless freedom of the screen exists in order that the public may 
 
 judge what shall be presented to it, and that as result of these 
 
 . principles, the only just censorship is that which is voluntary 
 
 1 on the part of the censor and the censored, and is consequently 
 
 in accord with the dictates of public opinion. In illustrating 
 
 these ideals, the Board cites the example that every newspaper 
 
 is censored before publication by the blue pencil of the editor 
 
 who will not publish that which runs counter to the public taste. 
 
 The idea is that the National Board is the blue pencil for the 
 
 motion picture industry and is more susceptible to fluctuations 
 
 in the public tastes, and more easily reversed when in error. 
 
 | The mechanical means for the carrying out of these principles 
 
 j are a number of committees of disinterested volunteers, serving
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 43 
 
 without pay, and a limited staff of paid workers for the routine 
 duties which require more or less constant attention. The main 
 committees of volunteers are the Executive Committees, the 
 General Committee and the Review Committee. The range 
 of their duties is indicated by their titles with sufficient accuracy 
 to obviate the necessity of explanation. The staff consists of 
 six secretaries, known as the Executive, Advisory, Review, 
 Corresponding, Membership and Assistant Review Secretaries, 
 whose duties are also roughly indicated by their titles. 
 
 The original purpose of the Board was to censor all pictures 
 before they were shown in New York City. Since June, 1909, 
 however, the scope of its activities has been broadened to include 
 the entire United States, and representatives, purely voluntarily, 
 keep the organization in touch with the various sections of the 
 nation. Its name was originally "The National Board of 
 Censorship of Motion Pictures," but due to a certain amount 
 of odium which has attached itself to the word "censorship" 
 in the minds of many people, and to the fact that a voluntary 
 organization which has little legal sanction or authority to compel 
 obedience to its decisions can hardly be said to do any censoring, 
 the name was soon changed to "National Board of Review of 
 Motion Pictures." 
 
 The original purpose of the Board, however, is no longer its 
 only purpose. Censoring, or better, reviewing, is still its most 
 important work, but a second type of service is now being 
 performed. Censoring is a purely critical function in that its 
 purpose is to disapprove of certain more or less definitely defined 
 types of pictures. The second service performed by the Na- 
 tional Board is constructive, and "involves cooperation with 
 all of the forces seeking the improvement of the photoplay both 
 dramatically and socially." Its general nature is illustrated by 
 such samples of its work as issuing selected lists of motion pictures 
 for various purposes, such as its lists of Best Motion Pictures for 
 Church and Semi-Religious Entertainments, Pictures Boys Want 
 and Grown- Ups Endorse, Industrial Motion Pictures, A Partial 
 List of Film Subjects on Health, Disease, Nursing and Allied 
 Topics, Motion Pictures Aids to Sermons, Dramatic Photoplays
 
 44 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 on Standard Literature, American Poetry and American and 
 French History, Forty Best Photoplays of 1920, Industrial Motion 
 Pictures, Monthly List of Selected Pictures, and others. This 
 selection is done under the direction of the National Committee 
 for Better Films, which is a part of the National Board of Review. 
 Its aim is to secure better films through co-operation with the 
 forces which influence the trend in the production of films and 
 achieve results through selection rather than through censorship. l 
 ' In the last analysis the National Board of Review seems to put 
 little faith in censorship as a means of improving pictures, and 
 it is difficult to understand how any other attitude could be taken, 
 since it itself is an organization which, though created primarily 
 for censorship purposes, is of necessity driven to other methods 
 of action by its lack of power to compel obedience, legally or 
 by public opinion. 
 
 The National Committee for Better Films, however, does not 
 feel that its constructive program should end with the selection 
 of desirable films and the publishing of lists of those suitable 
 for various purposes, but has attempted to evolve a plan whereby 
 the selections will result in the more frequent showing of the 
 better class of picture. In answer to numerous requests a brief 
 outline has been prepared illustrating the manner in which 
 communities may take full advantage of the opportunities offered 
 for the improvement of film standards in their locality. Co- 
 
 1 "Fine pictures inspiring in theme, realistic in acting, satisfactory as to 
 entertainment value and moral quality pay. The public is forever speaking 
 its mind effectually. The selection of motion pictures, therefore, is always 
 unconsciously going on. This selection, however, is accelerated by the 
 careful choices made by the National Board of Review, by the writers, by 
 the distributors and the exhibiting managers. 
 
 "This process is far more effective than any system of censorship. Our 
 laws forbid the publication of any libelous, obscene, indecent, immoral or 
 impure picture or reading matter. Strict law enforcement and selection are 
 the best censorship. They demonstrate the absolute uselessness of arbitrary 
 state and federal censorship." National Board of Review of Motion Pictures, 
 A Garden of American Motion Pictures, January, 1920, p. 3.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 45 
 
 operation is the first principle advocated in the program. All 
 interested people, including the exhibitors, should be brought 
 together to discuss selected pictures. The possibility of special 
 programs for family nights, composed entirely of pictures known 
 to be up to the highest standards through the endorsement of 
 the National Board of Review, should be considered, and if 
 difficulties arise, correspondence with the National Board is 
 invited. Publicity for these family night programs must also 
 be arranged on a co-operative basis. Some plan for bringing 
 people to these arranged entertainments must be evolved, since 
 special programs cost extra money, and the exhibitor cannot be 
 expected to undertake them without compensation. Above 
 all, a "well considered system of education of parents to develop 
 a public sentiment both for finer family pictures and for selected 
 pictures for young people" must be carried on. "The primary 
 responsibility for attendance at motion picture entertainments 
 rests upon the shoulders of the parents of the town." "There 
 must be supervision and there must also be a recognition of the 
 fact that most film dramas are made for the entertainment of 
 adults." This plan is said to have the whole-hearted co-opera- 
 tion of the motion picture theatre owners of America, and is 
 worthy of more co-operation than it actually has from all classes 
 of interested citizens. It is not, however, an adequate substitute 
 for legal censorship for it provides no means of control in com- 
 munities which do not happen to care for selected pictures. 
 
 The National Board of Review always has been a substitute 
 for legalized censorship, a means of satifying both those who are 
 working for better movies from the point of view of their moral 
 effect and those in the industry who do not desire legal super- 
 vision of too detailed a nature. It is a compromise between 
 
 1 National Board of Review of Motion Pictures, Selected Pictures in the 
 Theatres, May, 1921. 
 
 Bulletin of the Affiliated Committees for Better Films, Vol. V, No. 5, May, 
 1921. 
 
 Nunerous other publications of the National Board also stress this plan 
 of community co-operation functioning through selection rather than 
 through censorship.
 
 46 
 
 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 freedom from legal supervision of motion pictures and federal, 
 state or local censorship by legally appointed boards. As a 
 
 8 compromise without legal sanction in all except a few localities 
 it permits most of the compromising to be done by one party, 
 and places no absolute restrictions on the industry, which is left 
 free to submit its films for decision to the National Board or not, 
 as it sees fit. By its own claims, it views not more than 99 per cent, 
 and in actuality probably considerably less of the annual produc- 
 tion of motion pictures in the United States, and it has no ade- 
 quate authority over those it does view. When the number of feet 
 of film produced runs into the millions per year, the one or more 
 . per cent, which is not viewed is not negligible. But granted 
 that it were negligible, has the 99 per cent, been in any way 
 improved, or rather, has it been handled as well or better than 
 it would have been by state or other boards of censorship? 
 
 It is possible to compare the actions of state boards of censor- 
 ship with the actions of the National Board of Review on the 
 same films. An example would not be out of place. Doctor 
 Twombley, who has been previously mentioned, compared 228 
 films which had been examined by both the Pennsylvania State 
 CBoard of Censors and the National Board of Review. In these 
 films the Pennsylvania Board made 1,464 eliminations in accor- 
 dance with their standards as mentioned in a previous chapter 
 and given in detail in the appendix. The National Board of 
 Review in these same 228 films made only 47 eliminations. Out 
 of 16 films condemned as a whole as being so thoroughly unde- 
 sirable that it was impossible to make eliminations so that they 
 could be passed, none were condemned by the National Board, 
 and only 2 eliminations, both of a minor nature, were made. l 
 
 1 Chase, Wm. Sheafe, Catechism on Motion Pictures, New York, 1921, p. 24. 
 
 The following quotation from a published address delivered by Doctor 
 Twombley at the forty-second annual meeting of the New England Watch 
 and Ward Society at Trinity Church, Boston, Mass., on April 11, 1920, is an 
 indication that such discrepancies between the work of the National Board 
 of Review and the Pennsylvania Board are the rule rather than the exception.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 
 
 47 
 
 This difference of opinion between the two boards is all the more I 
 remarkable when it is considered that the official standards off 
 the two organizations, as stated in the official publications of] 
 each, do not vary to any considerable extent save in phraseology. 
 The expenses of the National Board of Review do not run 
 very high since the workers are for the most part unpaid. In 
 1920, $17,224.33 was spent in reviewing pictures. This figure 
 includes the expenses involved in maintaining offices and dis- 
 tributing information concerning the judgments of the board 
 to the cities and communities which co-operate with it. In the 
 same year $20,717.93 was spent on the constructive part of the 
 program, and was used in paying for traveling expenses, printing, 
 publications, and other work of a constructive nature. The re- 
 ceipts for the same period were $38,296.74, and were derived from a 
 flat rate per reel for viewing pictures, from membership fees, and 
 from general contributions. 1 Little of this income on which the 
 continued existence of the board depends seems to be independent 
 of the good will of the industry which is submitting to be censored. 
 Provision is made whereby no member of the reviewing committee 
 may be in any way connected with the motion picture industry, 
 and the claim is thus made that decisions cannot be influenced 
 by producers. This does not necessarily follow, for it would not 
 be an entirely unreasonable course of action on the part of viewers, 
 consciously or otherwise, to be as lenient as possible so as not to 
 ruin any effectiveness the board might have by incurring the ill 
 will of those who support it. Cases in which economic depen-,' 
 
 / "In 178 films examined some time ago, the Pennsylvania Board of Censors v -. 
 ' made 1,108 eliminations of objectionable scenes of immorality and lust and J 
 
 indecency of all kinds. In the same 178 films, the National Board of Review / 
 
 recommended 41 eliminations only! 
 
 new comparison made only this last week between the work of the 
 
 Pennsylvania Board and that of the National Board in New York, shows 
 
 329 eliminations in 50 films by the Pennsylvania Board, and only 6 by the 
 
 National Board in the same 50 films." 
 
 1 National Board of Review of Movion Pictures, Activities of, New York, 
 January 1, 1921, p. 10.
 
 48 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 - dence has influenced actions in regard to the source of supplies 
 are not rare, and one cannot help but feel suspicious in this case 
 in view of the wide disparity of action shown by. the above 
 comparison of the work of an independent and a dependent body 
 of reviewers. 1 
 
 Aside from the question of economic dependence, even though 
 the expenses of the National Board were to be paid from some 
 other source then they are at present, is it within reason to 
 suppose that producers would continue to submit pictures if 
 the percentage of eliminations recommended were much greater 
 than it is at present, or, if they did submit their productions for 
 approval, that many more eliminations would be made if recom- 
 . mended? As a question of expediency, it would be of doubtful 
 wisdom for the board to recommend many changes in the 
 pictures presented to them for the reason that producers do not 
 take kindly to the wasting of their financial investments and 
 would disregard the edicts of the board in a ratio directly in- 
 creasing with the stringency of enforcement of the established 
 standards. 
 
 1 The advocates of the National Board of Review as the most advisable 
 means of regulating motion pictures have made considerable use of the ap- 
 proval given their plan by the New York State Conference of Mayors in 1920 
 as evidence in their favor. The personnel of the committee whose report 
 was adopted by the Conference is worthy of attention. Of the thirteen 
 members of the general committee, the names of three appear on the stationery 
 of the National Board, though two of these are listed as representing other 
 agencies. The secretary of the committee, though not a member of it, was a 
 member of the National Advisory Committee of the National Board although 
 this was not mentioned as one of his qualifications. Three other members 
 represent the motion picture producers, exhibitors and distributors and are so 
 listed. Another member who was chairman of a sub-committee on state 
 censorship which condemned it as a means of control, was a well-known 
 author who has been noted for his violent attacks on any form of censorship. 
 The other members of the committee seem to have been of a more or less 
 neutral type. In view of these facts the conclusions reached do not seem 
 surprising. See, New York State Conference of Mayors, Report of Special 
 Committee on Motion Pictures, Albany, N. Y., February 24, 1920.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 49 
 
 The National Board of Review seems to be in favor of pre-jj 
 venting previewing of motion pictures by legal boards of censors P 
 by substituting for such regulation the enforcement by state [ 
 and city officials of its own decrees. It offers its services to cities 
 and states for co-operation in such legislation which in fact is 
 not so different from the type of regulation which it so strenuously 
 opposes except that in the case of legally constituted boards 
 judgments are made by responsible officials while in the case 
 of the co-operation plan the previewing is done by volunteers 
 who are in no way subject to legal supervision, nor can they be 
 held responsible to anyone for their acts. l Florida prevented 
 the passage of a state censorship act by prohibiting the showing 
 in the state of any pictures which had not been passed by the 
 National Board. 2 Boston and a number of other cities have 
 adopted similar plans. 3 In these cases one of the strongest 
 
 1 A model ordinance for city, town or village, favored by the National 
 Board of Review, providing for the enforcement of its decisions, is included 
 in the report of the special committee on the New York State Conference 
 of Mayors appointed to make an investigation into the regulation of motion 
 pictures. This report was submitted to, and adopted by the Conference at 
 the semi-annual meeting held in Albany, N. Y., February 24, 1920. 
 
 2 Bulletin of the Affiliated Committees for Better Films, Vol. V, No. 7, July, 
 1921, 4. 
 
 3 Mr. John M. Casey, Chief of the Licensing Bureau of the City of Boston, 
 who has charge of the regulation of motion pictures in that city, in a letter 
 under the date of March 9, 1922, has explained the system as follows: 
 
 "The State by legislation authorizes the Mayor to grant licenses for all 
 amusements in the city 'under whatever terms and conditions he may deem 
 reasonable, ' and one condition that applies to the exhibition of moving pictures 
 is, 'that all films intended for public exhibition must be approved by the 
 National Board of Review.' 
 
 "The principal reason for this condition lies in the fact that we feel that 
 the National Board of Review, by the decisions of its reviewers, more nearly 
 voices public sentiment than has been given by any other method." 
 
 See also, John M. Casey, The Boston, Mass., Method of Motion Picture 
 Regulation, an address read at the Conference of City Officials and National 
 Board of Review, New York City, October, 1919, issued in pamphlet form 
 by the National Board of Review in 1919.
 
 50 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 objections to the National Board is removed since its decisions 
 are given legal force, but the other defects inherent in the Na- 
 tional Board and the fact that if there is to be any previewing 
 done there seems to be no reason why a voluntary board should 
 be able to do it more efficiently than one paid by and accountable 
 to the state, render the well meant proposal inadvisable. 
 
 One indication of the influence which seems to have been 
 exerted on the works of the National Board is its attitude on the 
 question of censorship. It is openly opposed to legalized cen- 
 sorship and actively fights any proposal to establish it in any 
 state or community. Mrs. Albert E. Bulson, past president of 
 the Michigan Federation of Women's Clubs, is on record as 
 having said that "telegrams and letters came pouring in to our 
 legislators, my officers and myself with offers of speakers who 
 would present the matter from the standpoint of the pro- 
 ducers, when a censorship bill was being argued in the Michigan 
 legislature. l It was "the effort put forth by the National Board 
 of Review of Motion Pictures to spread propaganda against any 
 kind of censorship" which helped accomplish her conversion in 
 favor of censorship. 2 Objections to State Censorship of Motion 
 Pictures, Repudiation of Motion Picture Censorship in New York 
 City, and The Case against Federal Censorship of Motion Pictures 
 are the titles of three of many pamphlets sent the author by the 
 National Board of Review. All of them were published by the 
 National Board. Several investigations of the moral effects of 
 motion pictures, elsewhere discussed in greater detail, have 
 been made by the Board, one of which certainly failed to convey 
 an accurate impression of the findings. * More direct evidence 
 ) is not at hand, but the general impression of those who are 
 / independently working for better movies that the National 
 Board is not entirely a free agent apparently has some foundation 
 in fact. 
 
 1 Mrs. Albert E. Bulson, in the Report of the Fourteenth Biennial Convention 
 of the General Federation of Women's Clubs, pp. 450 and 451. 1918. 
 1 Mrs. Albert E. Bulson, op. cit. 
 1 National Board of Review, Motion Pictures Not Guilty, New York, 1920.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 51 
 
 We may, then, without impugning the motives of the volunteer 
 workers of the National Board of Review, summarize by saying 
 that the value of such an unofficial organization is much to be 
 doubted, in view of the fact that its existence may too easily be 
 jeopardized by those whom it is supposed to regulate. It has 
 been held up as a substitute for state censorship. It can never 
 fulfill that role. Its decisions cannot be enforced. Public 
 opinion is the only power which it claims to have behind it 
 throughout the country, and public opinion is far from being 
 unanimous in giving its support to anything. Its decisions 
 therefore will not be binding unless the exhibitor wants it to be 
 binding, which is an unsatisfactory state of affairs, or in those 
 scattered districts where the people know and are willing to 
 abide by the rulings which are distributed to a number of com- 
 munities by the board, which again is a situation not above 
 criticism. 
 
 This does not mean that the National Board of Review has no 
 function it can perform in the process of bettering conditions in 
 the motion picture industry. It means that a negative policy 
 cannot be carried out against exhibitors who believe they can 
 make money by violations of the negative decisions unless some 
 higher authority stands behind those decisions with the power to 
 compel obedience. If the National Board of Review wishes to 
 aid the "better movies" campaign it must emphasize its con- 
 structive policies. Its program must be one of education, of 
 education of the public and the industry. The Public must be 
 told what are the better pictures, which ones are suitable for 
 religious, educational, children's amusement, community health 
 and other purposes. It is said that only one- third of the pro- 
 jection machines in this country are owned by theatres, the 
 other two-thirds being owned by individuals, schools, churches 
 and other similar organizations. The National Board of Review 
 has here a large field to till, in that it may develop its present 
 constructive program and assist in directing the programs of 
 these machines. It may also direct the attention of the public 
 to the better type of picture to be seen at motion picture houses. 
 It may continue in its endeavors to ascertain the type of better
 
 52 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 picture which the public wants and will pay for. It may aid 
 in showing the light to the producers who still believe that the 
 grosser sex play is the most paying proposition. It may advise 
 legislators, furnish data on the probable effects of proposed 
 legislation, advise voters on sound bases of facts as to the probable 
 effect of their ballots on motion picture problems. There is no 
 end to the possibilities which lie before the National Board of 
 Review if it pursues a purely constructive program and abandons 
 its negative policies to the organization which is best fitted to 
 carry them out, the government. It may be said that the 
 recent activities of the National Board of Review show a decided 
 tendency to emphasize the work for which it is best adapted.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 53 
 
 VI 
 
 FEDERAL LEGISLATION 
 
 MOST of the Federal legislation which has been enacted con- 
 cerning motion pictures has been tax legislation. Probably the 
 heaviest of the taxes has been the 10 per cent, tax on admissions 
 which was levied in 1918, and which applies not only to motion 
 picture theatres but also to all admissions to places of amuse- 
 ment, such as legitimate theatres, baseball games, concerts, 
 cabarets and other similar places. The government collected 
 over $89,000,000 from this source during the fiscal year ending 
 June, 1921. l Possibly three-fourths of this amount was con- 
 tributed by motion picture theatres, according to the best 
 estimates available. It is regretable that the Treasury Depart- 
 ment has found it impossible to separate the amounts paid by 
 the various kinds of places of amusement which pay the 10 per 
 cent, tax since such figures would furnish a valuable index for the 
 estimation of the condition of the industry from period to period. 
 We are again faced with the problem resulting from the utter 
 lack of available statistics concerning the motion picture industry 
 as a whole, and until such figures are available no accurate or 
 final determination of the effects of taxation or other business 
 influences can be made. 
 
 The industry is of course also subject to other revenue meas- 
 ures by the Federal government. z Export and import duties 
 have been levied on raw and exposed film, cameras and other 
 mechanical appliances necessary to the trade. These are still 
 being fought and defended. There is nothing new in the discus- 
 sion, which is only a repetition of all of the old high and low 
 tariff debates. A 5 per cent, tax on the monthly totals of film 
 
 1 Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Annual Report, 1921, p. 90. 
 
 2 See, Cannon, Lucius H. Motion Pictures, Laws, Ordinances and Regula- 
 tions on Censorship, Minors and Other Related Subjects, St. Louis Public 
 Library, July, 1920, p. 124.
 
 54 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 rentals has just been repealed by Congress due to the insistent 
 and practically unopposed efforts of leaders in the trade who 
 were able to devote much of their time to lobbying in Washington 
 during the past legislative session. This film rental tax, which 
 together with the 10 per cent, admissions tax on ten cent admis- 
 sions, has been ineffective since January 1, 1922, was one of the 
 most bitterly fought taxes levied on motion pictures. The 
 contention usually offered was that it was overburdensome and 
 too great a handicap to be successfully borne, though the industry 
 seems to have developed at an extraordinary rate even while it 
 was enforced. The payment of taxes always hurts, especially 
 when they are as direct as the 5 per cent, film rentals tax and the 
 10 per cent, admissions tax. The clamor against these 
 "confiscatory measures" should therefore not be taken too 
 seriously. 
 
 Another type of federal legislation is that designed to protect 
 the military from ridicule and defamation. This legislation 
 forbids the wearing of any American military uniform by a 
 motion picture actor in a play in which his conduct would be 
 such as to lower the respect for the service. This would hardly 
 be worth mentioning in a social study were it not for the fact 
 that its enforcement has been strict though no special means of 
 compelling conformity were provided by the act. The govern- 
 ment has been able to enforce this legislation because public 
 opinion has been unquestionably back of it and because no 
 particularly great profit can be made by its violation. 
 
 Motion picture plays may be copyrighted under the laws of the 
 federal government upon compliance with practically the same 
 requirements as are imposed on the authors of books or articles 
 and on photographers. The court decision which has had the 
 greatest effect on copyright rights has been that of the United 
 States Supreme Court in which it held that a contract transfer- 
 ring the production privileges for presentation on the legitimate 
 stage of a literary work did not necessarily transfer the motion 
 picture production privileges unless specifically so stated in the 
 contract. There is adequate protection granted to motion
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 
 
 picture producers and little or no complaint is evident from any 
 source in regard to this phase of Federal legislation. 1 
 
 Immoral motion pictures are classed for purposes of Federal 
 regulation with immoral books, pictures and other indecent 
 matter, and the penalty for bringing them into the country or -**" 
 for transporting them from one State to another is set at $5,000 
 fine or five years' imprisonment, or both. The only statute 
 definition of what constitutes an immoral film is the phrase 
 
 "obscene, lewd, or lascivious, or any filthy motion 
 
 picture" which has been considered by the courts to be an 
 adequate definition for legal purposes, though claims are still / 
 being made that the vagueness of similar phrases in State legisla- 
 tion renders them unconstitutional. Pictures of prize fights, or 
 "pugilistic encounters, under whatever name," are also for- 
 bidden to be brought into the country or transported from one 
 State to another to be publicly exhibited, and a penalty of not 
 more than $1,000 fine or one year imprisonment, or both, is 
 provided. Otherwise no Federal provision has been made for 
 the protection of the public morals from possible undesirable 
 motion picture films. 
 
 Of the two statutes quoted in the above paragraph, the one 
 prohibiting the transportation of prize fight pictures is the most 
 effectively enforced. This is undoubtedly due to the strictness 
 of definition of the forbidden act. "Prize fight" is a definite 
 phrase, and admits of little quibbling over the meaning and 
 interpretation of the law, and cannot be misunderstood even in 
 the absence of a special interpretative body. In spite of the 
 clarity of the law, it has recently been evaded by- showing every- 
 thing connected with a world's championship fight except the 
 actual fighting. This evasion is strictly within the letter of 
 the law, and could not be prevented under any censorship act 
 as yet devised. Similar situations have arisen before State 
 censorship boards in the cases of murders, where, for example, 
 the pointing of the revolver, the raising of the knife, are per- 
 mitted, while the precise moment of the killing is deleted. 
 
 1 Wid's Year Book, New York, 1920, pp. 305, 331, 333.
 
 56 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 This seems a mere quibble over technicalities, yet it is difficult 
 to see how further restrictions could be imposed without danger 
 of foolish prudishness, even if it were unquestionably desirable 
 to do so. It would seem that with this exception to the enforce- 
 ment of the meaning of the act that its enforcement should 
 hardly be called effective, yet it is effective, but not due solely 
 to the efficiency of the enforcement officers, though their work 
 has been of the highest type possible under the existing legisla- 
 tion . It is the better type of theatre which has aided in enforcing 
 the law by refusing to show pictures which are uncontrovertibly 
 forbidden. With motion pictures under fire as they are at the 
 present time, owners cannot afford to endanger their cause by 
 flagrantly violating Federal statutes with no chance of contend- 
 ing that they have actually complied with them, as has been 
 done in the case of the laws against immoral pictures. This 
 voluntary conformity may also be due to personal desire to 
 keep in accordance with the law, and in many cases this un- 
 doubtedly is the motive for refusing to show pictures illegally. 
 Whatever the reason, few exhibitors will show pictures which 
 J ^ y* they have been definitely forbidden to show, and it is for this 
 \u. LbJ&V* reason that the legislation against the exhibition prize fight is 
 / being obeyed in most cases. 
 
 These motives, however, are effective not for all theatres 
 but for a majority only. There will always be a considerable 
 number of theatres on the fringe of the trade which will show 
 anything for profit, and it is these theatres which can never be 
 reached except by some highly efficient legalized body whose 
 primary duty is to do the reaching, and who will be held accounta- 
 ble if they fail. The Federal government provides no such body. 
 
 The five state boards of censorship annually make thousands 
 of eliminations from the motion picture films presented to them 
 for approval. In Pennsylvania alone from the first of December, 
 1917, until the last of November, 1918, out of 11,460 reels of 
 film of a thousand feet each, 450 were condemned. Including 
 minor eliminations, during the same period 6,142 cuts' were 
 made. One hundred and eight subjects were condemned and 
 157 subjects were reconstructed. From March, 1917, until
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 57 
 
 October, 1918, there were over 125 prosecutions by the Penn- 
 sylvania Board of Censors in which fines were inflicted for the 
 illegal showing of pictures. Statistics for Kansas, Maryland, 
 Ohio and New York show proportionate eliminations and 
 prosecutions. We have seen the standards on which these 
 eliminations are made. Unless the judgments of the state 
 boards are greatly at fault, the Federal legislation prohibiting 
 the transportations of lewd, obscene, lascivious and filthy 
 motion pictures is little more than an obsolete blue law. 
 
 There is little probability that in its present form it will ever 
 be anything but a dead letter law. The terms used in it are 
 subject to various interpretations, or, rather, specific scenes and 
 subjects may or may not be in violation of them, depending on 
 who is doing the deciding. It has been found necessary to have 
 an Interstate Commerce Commission to put transportation legisla 
 tion into effect. The Federal Trade Commission has turned out 
 to be a useful body. The courts alone were unable to handle 
 the duties which have been out of necessity given over to these 
 commissions. The courts and their subsidiary officials have 
 proved themselves incapable of handling the motion picture 
 situation as is evidenced by the large number of eliminations 
 and prosecutions which it is necessary for the few state anc 
 city boards now in operation to make, though their operations 
 in no way interfere with the operations of Federal legislation on 
 the subject. 
 
 Bills have been introduced into Congress proposing to estab- 
 lish a national division of film censorship under the Bureau of 
 Education, and to define more accurately the things which shall 
 be excluded from interstate commerce. They have all failed of 
 passage. It was best that they should. In 1920, for ex- 
 ample, a bill was introduced in the House of Representatives 
 to prohibit the carrying of films showing or simulating the acts 
 of "ex-convicts, desperadoes, bandits, train robbers, bank 
 robbers, or outlaws." During the same year Senator Gore 
 introduced a similar bill in the Senate. It would have been of 
 doubtful wisdom to pass either bill, for there is little reason to 
 believe that their enforcement would have been more successful
 
 58 
 
 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 than the laws already covering the subject unless some radically 
 new measures were taken. 
 
 Representative D. M. Hughes, of Georgia, introduced on 
 December 6, 1915, House of Representatives, Bill 456, providing 
 or the creation of a Federal motion picture commission which 
 was to be a division of the Bureau of Education. Hearings were 
 held by the House Committee on Education, of which Mr. 
 Hughes was Chairman. The opposition to it as shown by the 
 witnesses and documents against it came mainly from the motion 
 picture interests, though there were some objections raised by 
 those who had no apparent connection with the industry. The 
 significant thing about the evidence introduced is that it was 
 practically all nothing more than personal opinion, which may or 
 may not have been correct, but which should have been sup- 
 ported by more evidence than was introduced. It is doubtful 
 whether the fiughes bill was defeated on its merits, though 
 there is a likelihood that its passage in 1915 or 1916 would have 
 been unfortunate. l 
 
 Any Federal commission to censor motion pictures before 
 
 their licensing for exhibition would be unwise at the present 
 
 time. There cannot be said to be any general consensus of 
 
 opinion in favor of legalized previewing of pictures throughout 
 
 the nation, though this must not be taken to mean that there 
 
 is no sentiment against the type of picture which the censor 
 
 \jwould be called upon to eliminate. Only a handful of the many 
 
 I/states and cities in the country have censorship legislation in 
 
 I force, and the remainder are not yet ready to take such action, 
 
 If or to have it thrust upon them. By the form of our government, 
 
 I the general police power, under which such action would natur- 
 
 \ ally fall, belongs residually to the separate states, and is in turn 
 
 \ delegated in part by them to the local communities. Until 
 
 1 The Hughes Bill, H. R. 456, has reappeared in practically the same form 
 in H. R. 10, 577, "A Bill to create a new division of the Bureau of Education, 
 to be known as the Federal Motion Picture Commission, and definining its 
 powers and duties, " which was introduced in the House of Representatives on 
 February 22, 1922, by Mr. Appleby of New Jersey.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 59 
 
 there is a more general belief in the principle of legalized censor-ft 
 ship, proven to exist by laws actually in effect, it would be 
 poor governmental policy to take a portion of the police power 
 customarily exercised by the states and their agencies away 
 from the governmental subdivisions which now hold it on th 
 pretext of regulating interstate commerce. Aside from th 
 technical administrative difficulties which would be encountere 
 there would be so many areas of considerable importance in whic 
 public opinion would not permit the enforcement of national 
 censorship legislation that the resulting moral deterioration i 
 those sections would largely offset the possible beneficial effec 
 in others. 
 
 It may then be said that the existing Federal legisla- 
 tion governing the motion picture industry is sufficiently well 
 framed and inclusive to serve the required purposes, though it 
 is not always achieving the results for which it was intended due 
 to lack of local co-operation and of specifically assigned enforce- 
 ment officers. No unanimity of opinion on the motion picture 
 question has been shown to exist among the forty-eight states of 
 the Union and more stringent action of a national character is 
 therefore not to be urged until some future date when the assump- 
 tion of police power by the national government would meet 
 with general approval. No sound objections to national censor- 
 ship on grounds other than of policy have been raised.
 
 60 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 VII 
 
 LOCAL LEGISLATION: Municipal Regulation 
 
 THAT the police authorities have the power to stop the showing 
 / of any picture which they believe undesirable from the point of 
 1 view of the public welfare is well known. This power is fre- 
 quently exercised even in states which have state supervising 
 officials, such as Pennsylvania. A recent example of this was 
 
 /the ordering of the withdrawal of all motion pictures in which 
 Roscoe Arbuckle appeared as an actor from the programs of all 
 Philadelphia theatres by Mayor Moore on September 11, 1921, 
 on the ground that further exhibitions of pictures in which 
 Arbuckle appeared would tend to offend public morals in view of 
 the charges which were then pending against Arbuckle in 
 California. This action by Mayor Moore was similar to that 
 of the authorities in Los Angeles, Memphis, Chicago, New York, 
 Pittsburgh, Washington and other cities, and was taken in spite 
 of the fact that the charges had not been proven. Other uses 
 of the police power were made by a number of city officials in 
 the case of films such as "The Birth of a Nation," which might 
 have caused disturbances between races. 
 
 As a method of control of the motion pictures it has proven 
 inadequate because the proper surveillance of pictures requires 
 an adequate separate force and cannot properly be done as a side 
 line duty of officials elected for other purposes; because if separate 
 officials must be maintained for censorship it is better that they 
 should be state than local officials in order to eliminate as far 
 as possible the variations of standards with their consequent 
 expense to the producers and loss of efficiency in the process of 
 censoring; and because local officials have in the past been found 
 to be incompetent, or undesirous of performing censorship duties
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 61 
 
 on account of either improper personal training or motives. 
 The general tendency is to use this local power only when the 
 danger of disturbance of the peace is great or when the picture 
 is so grossly offensive to decency as to agitate a group of voters 
 into definite action and thus spur the elected officials into the 
 performance of their duties. 
 
 Local motion picture regulation has been confined to municipal 
 regulation, due to the fact that motion picture theatres are an 
 urban rather than a rural institution. * As was natural, the first 
 censorship in this country was city censorship enforced by the 
 ordinary police officials, and was nothing more than the adapta- 
 tion of existing machinery of government to new conditions in 
 the simplest possible way as the new conditions arose. If 
 pictures were found to be immoral in the judgment of the city 
 officials they were eliminated just as immoral legitimate plays 
 were eliminated, that is, by action of the mayor or his subordinate 
 officials. Out of this first method of meeting the problem of 
 the undesirable motion picture has grown what is possibly the 
 most common system of censorship in use in the United States 
 today, that of a fioard of city^ensors acting under the city police 
 department, frequently consisting of regularly appointed officers 
 assigned^ to" this special duty, responsible to the mayor for the 
 proper performance of their work. If sufficient attention is 
 given to the qualifications of the men and women selected for 
 this duty it may be the most efficient method of municipal regula- 
 tion due to its flexibility in operation and centralization of final 
 authority in the hands of an accountable elective public official. 
 Chicago, New York and many other cities have used this general 
 type of censorship with considerable success, and there is little 
 doubt but that if municipal censorship is shown to be desirable 
 this system should meet with much favor in spite of the cries of 
 
 J A good discussion of censorship for all theatres which has added value 
 because it was written by a man who has had years of personal experience 
 in handling the problems of the immoral play, is contained in the article, 1 
 The Theatre and the Law, by William McAdoo, Chief City Magistrate of 11 
 New York, published in the Saturday Evening Post, January 28, 1922.
 
 62 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 "graft", "incompetence", and "personal favor" which are 
 always raised when its use is being considered. l 
 
 While numerous variations of this municipal censorship board 
 have been tried throughout the country, in the principles in- 
 volved and in the results achieved by them few differences of 
 practical importance are noticeable, and these few need little 
 consideration here for the same reason that local censorship needs 
 little consideration in this work, and that is an objection to this 
 type of regulation which has never been overcome, the objection 
 that local regulation of a national institution of the importance 
 of motion pictures is economically and socially unsound unless 
 some centralizing control is imposed. 2 It is obviously impossible 
 for any such control to be instituted nationally, and as yet no 
 practical suggestion has been made for state control of municipal 
 censorship. It is difficult to see just how any plan of state 
 control of local regulation could be put into effect for some time 
 
 1 Chicago, for example, has had this type of motion picture regulation. 
 Section 1625, as amended May 24, 1915, of the City Ordinances specifies 
 
 that: "It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to lease or 
 transfer, or otherwise put into circulation, any motion picture, plates, films, 
 rolls or other like articles or apparatus from which a series of pictures for public 
 exhibition can be produced, for the purpose of exhibition within the city, 
 without first having secured a permit therefor from the general superintendent 
 of police of Chicago. 
 
 " If a picture or series of pictures for the showing or exhibition of which an 
 application for a permit is made, is immoral or obscene, or portrays any 
 riotous, disorderly or other unlawful scene, or has a tendency to disturb the 
 public peace, it shall be the duty of the general superintendent to refuse such 
 permit; otherwise it shall be his duty to grant such permit." Department of 
 Police, City of Chicago, City Ordinances Governing the Exhibition of Moving 
 Pictures. (A recent undated publication.) 
 
 2 See, Cannon, Lucius H., Motion Pictures, Laws, Ordinances and 
 Regulations on Censorship, Minors and Other Related Subjects, St. Louis Public 
 Library, July, 1920, for examples of local regulation of motion pictures. 
 One distinct type of local regulation, that of the enforcement of the decisions 
 of the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures by city officials, has been 
 considered in the chapter on the National Board of Review.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 63 
 
 to come since in the past our political structure has not lent 
 itself easily to the imposition of centralizing organizations on 
 local agencies of government. The impossibility of adequate 
 national or state guidance of the existing local governmental 
 agencies such as the city, county, or township, forces us to the 
 conclusion that such local regulation of motion pictures is not 
 the most advisable form of regulation. 
 
 This does not mean that city censors should be abolished, or 
 that they have performed no service in the past. The report of 
 the Chicago Motion Picture Commission is sufficient to show 
 that they are performing a most useful function. Not only are 
 they now rendering society a valuable service, but they were 
 also instrumental in demonstrating the desirability of legalized 
 censorship in other forms. While they are not the most satis- 
 factory type of regulation they are certainly better than none 
 at all. 
 
 In a way local control of motion pictures may be compared 
 with local option in regard to the liquor trade. Each is the 
 first stage in a gradual evolutionary process. This comparison, 
 with corresponding prophecies by reformers concerning the 
 future, is not uncommon, and contains some measure of truth, 
 but it must be remembered that in the case of alcoholic liquors 
 the fight was against an alleged absolute evil with no important 
 redeeming features. This is far from the case in the fight for 
 motion picture regulation, for motion pictures admittedly contain 
 extremely great possibilities for social betterment. In the one 
 case the solution demanded had to be prohibition; in the other 
 it cannot be more than reasonable regulation. Although this 
 analogy is not entirely accurate it serves its purpose here if it 
 illustrates the fact that however valuable local censorship is 
 today, it cannot be regarded as anything final in motion picture 
 legislation, but only as a stepping^ stone on the way to some 
 Setter plan.
 
 64 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 VIII 
 LOCAL LEGISLATION: State Boards of Censorship 
 
 SINCE it appears on the basis of the investigations discussed 
 in the preceding chapter that at least a fifth of the motion 
 picture plays now being shown to the public tend to have some 
 demoralizing effect on those who see them, and since approxi- 
 mately twenty million people daily attend motion picture shows 
 in this country alone, the total effect on the ideals and consequent 
 activities is far from negligible. The four-fifths of the pictures 
 which either have a positive tendency to create conformity to the 
 accepted standards or which have practically no effect at all 
 need not receive lengthy consideration in a discussion of legalized 
 censorship. The word censorship itself implies the fact that the 
 duty of a censor is to eliminate the undesirable rather than to 
 direct his attention to the constructive side of the question. 
 His work is almost entirely negative, and it is for that reason that 
 many of the attacks against his office have been launched. 
 The justice of such attacks may be judged by the amount of 
 negative work which has had to be done. Frontier conditio 
 in industry as well as in colonization demand harsh measures. 
 
 It is as a state organization that censorship has achieved its 
 greatest importance in the United States, and it is consequently 
 against this particular type of regulation that the most severe 
 criticism has been levied. For this reason the general arguments 
 for and against legalized censorship will here be discussed as a 
 part of the state censorship battle, though many of the principles 
 involved apply equally to municipal and Federal control. These 
 recurrent principles will not be mentioned in support of each 
 case to which they apply, for their application is so apparent 
 that such repetition would be tedious and without value.. 
 
 State censorship boards are supplementary to the ordinary 
 judicial and administrative systems and do not supplant them 
 as is commonly supposed. For example, the mayor of any Penn- 
 sylvania city has authority to forbid the showing of any picture
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 65 
 
 he believes exceptionally harmful to the public welfare not- 
 withstanding a possible license for exhibition from the state 
 board. The board of censors only prescribes a standard below 
 which no picture is permitted to be exhibited. Other state 
 agencies may compel conformity to higher standards if they 
 wish but they may not lower the standards enforced by the 
 state authorities, excepting the courts, which may reverse cen- 
 sorship decisions if they are unreasonable or unquestionably 
 beyond the authority granted by the state legislature. 
 
 Pennsylvania was the first state to adopt the principle of 
 motion picture censorship through a state board, and has been 
 followed in the adoption of this principle by Kansas, Ohio, 
 Maryland, New York and Virginia. The first Pennsylvania 
 Board of Censors was created by the Act of Assembly approved 
 by the Governor, John K. Tener, June 19, 1911. This act was in 
 effect until May 15, 1915, when it was revised by legislative v 
 action. Under the reorganization act of 1915 a board of three 
 people, two men and one woman, "well qualified by experience 
 and education to act as censors," and residents and citizens of 
 Pennsylvania, are appointed by the Governor for terms of three 
 years. 1 Pennsylvania was one of the pioneers in this field, and 
 the work of the Board has always been considered well worth 
 studying by other censors. The act itself has furnished the 
 groundwork for the majority of censorship acts which have 
 since been proposed by other states and by the Federal govern- 
 ment. 
 
 The second slate to introduce state censorship wa^C^iiio*, ^ 
 which on April 16, 1913, passed the law creating the Board of 
 Censors which consisted of three persons, appointed by the 
 Industrial Commission, with the approval of the Governor, 
 for terms of three years. * It is worthy of mention that this 
 board, the second of its kind in the country, is reported to have 
 been originated and backed by a number of motion picture men 
 of the state. 
 
 1 Pennsylvania State Board of Censors, "Rules and Standards," Harris- 
 burg, Pa., 1918. 
 
 2 Cannon, Lucius H., op. cit. p. 132 ff.
 
 66 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 James M. Cox, who was governor of Ohio in 1913, and who 
 strongly supported the censorship bill, gave his support to it 
 because he desired to protect the children and young people of 
 his state. This seems to have been the general attitude of the 
 time, and presents a parallel to several other lines of development 
 of social reforms. In the development of the human and scientific 
 treatment of criminals it was the children who first attracted 
 attention to existing evils in the penal system of Europe due to 
 the fact that they were naturally more readily objects of sym- 
 pathy than adult offenders, and the fact that it was more readily 
 observable that the environment into which they were thrust 
 could not help but shape their lives than it was in the case of 
 adults. The same is true in the case of the treatment of the 
 mentally defective and of the poor. Even today the cause of 
 children needing assistance is much more easily pled than that of 
 adults, though the adults might be in much greater distress. 
 We see here the results of the belief in the doctrine of free will as 
 opposed to that of determinism, which, while still widely believed 
 in so far as adults are concerned, has been doubted for many 
 centuries in its application to the immature. 
 
 Slowly but steadily censorship officials are breaking away 
 from the idea that they are working for the benefit of children 
 only, or for any other class of audience. The interested public 
 is no longer basing its arguments for censorship solely on the 
 plea that the children of the nation must be guarded. While the 
 form of the laws passed since that of Ohio has changed but little, 
 the emphasis in their administration and the reasons advanced 
 in their support are undergoing fundamental changes, although 
 little actual progress has as yet been made since the Ohio act of 
 1913. 
 
 Under both the original Ohio censorship act and the amend- 
 ment which became effective August 27, 1915, the Industrial 
 Commission of that state controlled the board of censors, through 
 its power of appointment and supervision, specifically granted 
 by the act. This authority extended down to such things as the 
 providing of offices and equipment necessary for the carrying 
 out of the act, and the fact that the secretary of the Industrial
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 67 
 
 Commission acted also as secretary of the board. On July 1, 1921, 
 however, Governor Davis' Reorganization Bill abolished the 
 Ohio Board of Censors and all its powers and duties were trans- 
 ferred to the Division of Film Censorship under the Department 
 of Education. This again emphasizes the idea of child saving 
 which played an all-important part in the establishment of the 
 theory of censorship in the minds of those who have been 
 interested in the work. 
 
 The first censorship bill in Kansaswas passed by the Legisla- 
 ture in 19 14. .and provided a^ system of examination, approval 
 and regulation of motion picture films. In 1917 the legislature 
 created a board of three people, "resident citizens of Kansas, 
 well qualified by education and experience to act as censors," 
 for the purpose of regulating the showing of films. The full 
 term of service for members of this board was, as in the case of 
 Ohio, three years. J This board is the one functioning in Kansas 
 at the present time, though a slight modification of one of the 
 financial provisions of the act of 1917 was made in 1919 for the 
 purpose of making the board self-supporting. 
 
 Thp Maryjjyjfl hoard of censors was created in 191 6^ and also ^T5* 
 consists of three members serving for three years. They are 
 appointed by the governor "with the advice and consent of the 
 senate, and the provision is made that one of the three shall be a 
 member of the party which polled the second highest vote at the 
 last general election prior to their appointment. 2 This latter 
 provision is important in its implications that the office of 
 censor, which is a technical position and requires considerable 
 training and soundness of judgment, is one of the spoils of war. 
 
 New York, the fifth staj;e to have legalized censorship, has 
 but recently joined the first four. JOfflida should possibly be 
 included among the states which have censorship of motion 
 pictures, but since the chief duty of the Florida officials is to 
 enforce the decisions of the National Board of Review it has 
 seemed best not to discuss the system of that state here in view 
 
 1 Kansas State Board of Review, Annual Report of, Topeka, 1920, p. 10 ff. 
 
 2 Cannon, Lucius H., op. cit. p. 120 ff.
 
 68 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 of the fact that the National Board has already been analyzed 
 and a further discussion would add little to the value of our work. 
 In spite of a hot fight put up by the motion picture interests, in 
 New York State a censorship law very similar to those in ex- 
 istence in other states was passed by the legislature and signed 
 by Governor Miller. l Virginia in March, 1922, also adopted 
 state censorship of motion pictures, using a type of board simi- 
 lar to those in the other states mentioned. 
 
 It would seem that since only six states out of the forty-eight 
 in the United States of America have legalized censorship, and 
 that since the legislation on the subject in these states has all 
 been passed within the last ten or fifteen years, that censorship 
 has not yet had a trial by which it would be fair to judge its 
 value. This is not the case, for censorship is neither so new nor 
 so narrowly restricted as it would seem to be at first glance, nor 
 has it been without valuable results in the states in which it 
 has been tried. 
 
 England has had an effective form of censorship of the theatre 
 for almost two centuries. This was extended to motion pictures 
 as the motion picture industry expanded, and it is indicative 
 of the fact that it has not failed in England that the results 
 of the investigation of the Cinema Commission of Inquiry 
 which was instituted by the National Council of Public 
 Morals in Great Britain showed a balance of evidence in favor 
 of the continuation of motion picture censorship. 2 The 
 Cinema Commission was very careful in its investigation to 
 
 1 Laws of New York, Chapter 715, "An act to regulate the exhibition of 
 motion pictures, etc.," became a law May 14, 1921. 
 
 2 England has had censorship of theatres of all kinds since 1727. There 
 have been four Parliamentary investigations of censorship, in 1853, 1866, 
 1892 and 1909, none of which seem to have disclosed any facts justifying its 
 abolition, for complete censorship of all theatres is still in effect. Hearings 
 before the Committee on Education, House of Representatives, January 
 15-19, p. 157. 
 
 For a discussion of the development of motion pictures and censorship in 
 England, see the Times, London, February 21, 1922, Supplement, pp. V to 
 XVI.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 69 
 
 gather all varieties of evidence on the different social aspects 
 of the industry, and its report today stands as one of the most 
 thorough of its kind. It is without doubt the best governmental 
 investigation of the effects of motion pictures ever completed, 
 and will probably remain such for a long time. It is regretable 
 that nothing has been undertaken in this country that approaches 
 it in scope or value, though the United States is the leading 
 nation in the field of motion picture production and exhibition. 
 Germany had motion picture censorship before the World 
 War, dropped it for a time, and was recently compelled to go 
 back to censorship by the gross violations of the standards of 
 decency by producers who were attempting to "give the public 
 what it wanted." Japan also has a national censorship system 
 which has not been unsuccessful. l Numerous other govern- 
 mental units have legalized previewing of motion pictures 
 The Lieut.-Governors-in-Council in Alberta, British Columbia, 
 Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec and 
 Saskatchewan have power to appoint either censors or boards 
 of censorship with power to permit or prohibit the exhibition of 
 any film in their respective provinces. Section 1626 of the 
 ordinances of the Chicago City Council, as amended May 24, 
 1915, prohibits the circulation of any motion picture film unless 
 a permit shall previously have been obtained from the superin- 
 tendent of police of the city. Examples of this nature 
 might be greatly multiplied, but no case could be cited 
 where after censorship had been given a fair trial it 
 was shown to be a failure and eliminated. It is remark- 
 able that in spite of the sincere and expensive agitation on the 
 
 '"This Board" (the Japanese Board of Censorship of motion pictures) 
 "belongs to the police department of every prefecture in Japan where one 
 or two men can accept or reject any picture they wish. This Board is under 
 the police department functioning under each local government. It is a 
 part, however, of the Imperial Interior Department. It regulates, both on 
 the administrative and judicial sides, the producer, the exhibitor, the audience 
 and others connected with motion pictures as well as the films by inspection." 
 The Bulletin of the Affiliated Committees for Better Films, Vol. IV, No. 5, 
 May, 1920.
 
 70 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 part of the industry to get rid of what they believe to be the 
 curse of their business, not one censorship victory of any impor- 
 tance, either in the courts or in the balloting by the people, has 
 been placed to their credit. The extent of the battle for censor- 
 ship in this country may be judged by the statement made in 
 Wid's Year Book for 1920 to the effect that the Censorship 
 Committee of the National Association of the Motion Picture 
 Industry would fight censorship in thirty-six states during the 
 winter of 1921. This in itself is an indication of the hold which 
 the idea of state censorship has on the people of the United 
 States. It may be said without fear of serious contradiction 
 that censorship has not grown more rapidly than the industry 
 itself, and, therefore, cannot be called a mushroom growth 
 by the industry, nor can it be said to be a failure in 
 view of its rapid gain in popularity, unless facts are produced 
 to show that it has seriously injured the industry without cor- 
 respondingly greater benefits to the public. 
 
 Realizing, then, that censorship is not a passing phenomenon, 
 and that state censorship is one of its most important Jorms, it 
 is advisable to consider the mechanical details thereof as pro- 
 vided by legislative enactments. The usual number of members 
 of state censorship boards is three, the only exception to this 
 rule being Ohio, and even in this case there are two assistants to 
 the chief of the Division of Film Censorship of the Department 
 of Education. Before the Reorganization Bill of July 1, 1921, 
 there were also three members of the Ohio board of censors. 
 Appointment to office is by the governor of the state, with or 
 without the consent and advice of the senate, the appointment 
 usually being for a term of three years. Appointees are sup- 
 posed to be qualified by education and experience to fulfill the 
 duties attendant upon their office. All films must be submitted 
 to the board for approval before being exhibited within the 
 territory of the state. The board is given general instructions 
 to approve films which are educational or afford harmless 
 amusement, and is to disapprove all that are harmful, immoral, 
 sacrilegious, indecent, or likely to stir up race or class hatred. 
 Films may be disapproved in whole or in part for violations of
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 71 
 
 the above standards in action or in theme. Recourse may be 
 had by the producer to the courts of the state in case it is his 
 belief that the rejection of his film was without adequate reason. 
 Violations of the rules and decisions of the boards of censors are 
 punished by fines of from a few dollars on up to a few hundred. 
 Jail sentences are also possible in a number of cases, but this 
 amounts to little more than a possibility in actual practice. 
 This, in bare outline, includes the important common features 
 of the existing state censorship acts, as provided by law. It 
 does not, however, tell the entire story. 
 
 The arguments against censorship are, as is to be expected, 
 best stated by officials of the industry, though there are many 
 entirely disinterested people who are opposed to censorship on 
 principle. Their ideas, however, have been adopted by the 
 industry and need not be discussed separately. 
 
 Possibly the first argument advanced against censorship was 
 the one that censorship of motion pictures constitutes a violation 
 of the inalienable principle of freedom of speech The Pennsyl- 
 vania act of Assembly of June 19, 1911, creating a board of 
 censors was promptly challenged on grounds of unconstitutional- 
 ly. The final decision in this case, as in every other case based 
 on similar grounds, was in favor of the principle of previewing 
 censorship. 
 
 In the case of Jake Block, Nathan Wolf, et al. f vs. The City 
 of Chicago, 23*9 Illinois Supreme Court Reports, page 251, the 
 legality of a city censorship was upheld by the court in an 
 opinion which maintained the following principles: 
 
 " (1) The City has power to regulate the motion picture busi- 
 ness; 
 
 "(2) That an ordinance passed under express powers cannot be 
 held void or unreasonable; 
 
 "(3) That the ordinance is not invalid because the Chief of 
 Police is to determine whether the pictures are obscene or 
 immoral ;
 
 72 
 
 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 '(4) That the ordinance prohibiting the exhibition of immoral, 
 or obscene pictures is not invalid because it fixes no definite 
 or certain standard; 
 
 "(5) That a picture may be immoral, although it illustrates 
 scenes connected with history; and 
 
 " (6) That a person is not deprived of his constitutional rights 
 without due process of law when not permitted to show a 
 picture that violates the provisions of the ordinance." l 
 
 The decision of the Illinois Supreme Court which embodies 
 these principles in accordance with the general legal opinion 
 throughout the United States, and the positions taken by the 
 court, may be considered as typical of the legal views on the 
 question raised. 
 
 Two cases were taken to the Supreme Court of the United 
 States and decisions were handed down by that court during 
 
 e October term of 1915. These were the case of the Mutual 
 Film Corporation vs. the Ohio Industrial Commission, 236 U. S. 
 Supreme Court Reports, pp. 240 to 248, and the case of the 
 Mutual Film Corporation vs. George H. Hodge, Governor of Kansas, 
 236 U. S. Supreme Court Reports, p. 257. Both cases were 
 argued on the same grounds, namely, that the censorship statute 
 in question imposed an unlawful burden on interstate commerce ; 
 that it violated the principle of freedom of speech and publica- 
 tion; and that it attempted to delegate legislative power to 
 censors. Mr. Justice McKenna rendered the decision, and 
 upheld the validity of both the Ohio and the Kansas censorship act. 
 Much of his decision in the Ohio case is included in a footnote, 
 which follows, and in Appendix F, for the reason that he has care- 
 fully discussed the points in question, and that, although his stand 
 was definitely against the allegations of the Mutual Film Cor- 
 poration on all points of constitutionality which were raised, 
 the opponents of censorship still continue to argue the case with 
 statements concerning the limitation of the right of freedom of 
 speech and of the press, and the deprivation of property without 
 
 1 Chicago Motion Picture Commission, Report, September, 1920, p. 12.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 73 
 
 due process of law. > Those phrases have long been recognized 
 
 1 "Where provisions for censorship of moving pictures relate only to films 
 intended for exhibition within the State and they are distributed to persons 
 within the State for exhibition, there is no burden imposed on interstate 
 commerce. 
 
 "The doctrine of original package does not extend to moving picture films 
 transported, delivered and used as shown in the record in this case, although 
 manufactured in, and brought from, another State. 
 
 " Moving picture films brought from another State to be rented or sold by 
 the consignee to exhibitors, are in consumption and mingled as much as from 
 their nature they can be with other property of the State and subject to its 
 otherwise valid police regulation, even before the consignee delivers to the 
 exhibitor. 
 
 "The judicial sense, supporting the common sense of this country, sustains 
 the exercise of the police power of regulation of moving picture exhibitions. 
 
 "The exhibition of moving pictures is a business, pure and simple, originated 
 and conducted for profit like other spectacles, and not to be regarded as part 
 of the press of the country or as organs of public opinion within the meaning of 
 freedom of speech and publication guaranteed by the constitution of Ohio. 
 
 "This court will not anticipate the decision of the state court as to the 
 application of a police statute of the State to a state of facts not involved in 
 the record of the case before it. Quaere, whether moving pictures exhibited in 
 places other than places of amusement should fall within the provisions of the 
 censorship statute of Ohio. 
 
 " While administration and legislation are distinct powers and the line that 
 separates their exercise is not easily defined, the legislature must declare the 
 policy of the law and fix the legal principles to control in given cases, and an 
 administrative body may be clothed with power to ascertain facts and con- 
 ditions to which such policy and principles apply. 
 
 "It is impossible to exactly specify such application in every instance, and 
 the general terms of censorship, while furnishing no exact standard of require- 
 ments may get precision from the sense and experience of men and become 
 certain and useful guides in reasoning and conduct 
 
 "The moving picture censorship act of Ohio of 1915, is not in violation of 
 the Federal Constitution or the constitution of the State of Ohio, either as 
 depriving the owners of moving pictures of their property without due process 
 of law or as a burden on interstate commerce, or as abridging freedom and 
 liberty of speech and opinion, or as delegating legislative authority to adminis- 
 trative officers." 
 
 Mutual Film Corporation vs. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 256 United 
 States Supreme Court Reports, p. 230.
 
 74 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 to have excellent value as slogans, and a group of court decisions, 
 including two by the United States Supreme Court, will not 
 find it easy to drive them out of use. x 
 
 Another frequently used argument against censorship is the 
 statement that it is unnecessary. 2 It is unnecessary, it is 
 claimed, first, because pictures shown contain little that could 
 be harmful to the community. The amount of harmful material 
 they actually contain may be judged by the fact that as has been 
 previously mentioned, no important survey of the contents of 
 motion pictures has failed to find a considerable proportion of 
 American motion pictures to contain socially undesirable ele- 
 ments. A better grounded reason for the lack of necessity for 
 censorship is the belief that there are other more effective or less 
 objectionable ways of accomplishing the same results. 
 J Public opinion, for example, will in the long run undoubtedly 
 [ have an effect in the process of eliminating the socially unde- 
 
 ' l The United States Supreme Court decided that compulsory previewing 
 of motion pictures was constitutional in 1915. (See Appendix F for de- 
 tails of this decision.) The following quotation taken from a pamphlet issued 
 in opposition to state censorship since that year, but does not seem to have 
 been affected by the Supreme Court decisions. 
 
 "The Constitution of the United States and those of the several states 
 guarantee the freedom of speech and the press. Motion pictures have arisen 
 since the framing of the constitutions, but they are obviously a means whereby 
 opinions are expressed, and as such they are entitled to the same right of 
 liberty as is accorded speech and press." A Garden of American Motion 
 Pictures, published by the National Board of Review of Motion Pictures, 
 January, 1920, p. 24. 
 
 2 The following telegram opposing the adoption of House of Representa- 
 tive Bill 456 is typical of much of the opposition to legalized censorship and 
 assumes great significance when it is remembered that the motion picture 
 mentioned in it was one which many serious and responsible citizens and 
 officials of this country believed likely to cause race difficulties. It was for 
 this reason that it was censored in many parts of the United States. The 
 telegram, which is apparently intended as a serious argument against censor- 
 ship in general and of one picture in particular, pays no attention whatever 
 to the point at issue, that of public safety.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 75 
 
 sirable. In support of this method of improving the standards 
 of the industry is offered the admitted change which has come 
 about in the type of pictures which are being exhibited. The 
 wild west picture is a thing of the past, so far as the better houses 
 are concerned, though the old-time thriller is still being shown 
 in many of the cheaper theatres. Similarly, the "vamp" is no 
 longer the popular favorite in screen plays that she was but 
 a few years ago. Other examples could readily be shown of the 
 trend away from the more crude appeals to the emotions. The 
 leading pictures of the past year have been sensual, elaborate 
 
 "New York, N. Y. 
 "Hon. James E. Martine, 
 
 United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 
 
 " Censorship of motion pictures is the most dangerous attack on American 
 liberty since the foundation of the Republic. The motion picture is a process 
 of recording thought on yellow parchment without the use of printer's ink, 
 and is as great an advance on printing as Guttenberg's invention was over the 
 quill and pen. The printing press revolutionized the world by bringing 
 knowledge within the reach of hundreds of millions. To strangle this great 
 art in its infancy will be a crime against humanity. Free speech is the founda- 
 tion of our Republic. There is no reason for censorship. The motion picture 
 show is now cleaner than the spoken drama or the press. The police powersf 
 of the State are already ample. Any citizen can close a theatre within an! 
 hour if the laws of morality are violated. A censorship of opinion is the aimj 
 of our enemies. Our fathers fled the Old World to escape this and founded] 
 the Republic to free the human mind from shackles. Shall we go back to thd 
 dark ages? I first preached the Clansman as a sermon. No censor daredi 
 to silence my pulpit. I turned my sermon into a lecture and delivered it V 
 from Maine to California without license. I turned the lecture into a novel I 
 and no censor has yet stopped the press of Doubleday, Page & Co. I turned } 
 the novel into a spoken play, and no censor has dared to interfere. I turned 
 the play into a motion picture, and it has cost me $75,000 in lawyers' fees ; 
 to fight the local censors the first ten months. This condition of affairs is 
 infamous. It is the immediate duty of Congress to reffirm the principle/ 
 of free speech in America and abolish all censors. 
 
 (Signed) THOMAS DIXON." 
 
 Hearings before the Committee on Educatoin, House of Representatives, 
 January 13-19, 1916, p. 236.
 
 76 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 portrayals of Oriental life. A third type of picture can be seen 
 
 to be gathering popularity, the picture which is based on a story 
 
 of known merit, written by authors of literary ability, played by 
 
 actors who have acting ability. It is not difficult to see how 
 
 this change has been brought about by the censorship power of 
 
 public opinion, but public opinion by itself, unsupported by 
 
 some authorities who will review all plays, and not only those 
 
 shown in the convenient theatres of a respectable nature, cannot 
 
 , reach half of the productions that are being reached by the 
 
 / Pennsylvania system. It is the fraction that public opinion 
 
 * cannot reach that needs attention. 
 
 In the third place, state censorship is said to be unnecessary 
 because there already exist officials with all the requisite legal 
 authority to eliminate the obscene and immoral pictures. This 
 point has already been discussed in such a way as to show that 
 although there seems to be little wrong with the theory involved, 
 it has not proved satisfactory in practice. 
 
 Again, it is the claim of the National Board, for example, 
 that parents are in duty bound to supervise the recreation of 
 their children and to see to it that only the better type of picture 
 is patronized. The cry that the United States is becoming too 
 / paternalistic has been raised, and the motion picture interests 
 ' have seized with joy on this anti-censorship slogan, which seems 
 / to be especially powerful at the present time. The opponents 
 j of motion picture censorship forget that the same cry of paternal- 
 ism was raised against compulsory education at its inception. 
 They forget that the "let alone" policy has been abandoned 
 after repeated and successful trials of an opposite policy by our 
 government in cases where the public welfare was concerned. 
 The possible anti-social effects of motion pictures are such as to 
 justify governmental interference for the welfare of the nation, 
 and until the facts show that clean pictures alone will be pro- 
 duced and exhibited without governmental regulation the laws 
 of the nation must be "paternalistic". While it is conceivable 
 that 99 per cent, of the industry may reach that stage when they 
 will give the public only that which is in accord with the accepted 
 social standards, it would be an unusual situation were the
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 
 
 77 
 
 entire trade to refrain from wrongfully capitalizing the human / 
 emotions of its patrons if free from legal supervision. We may 
 assume that most business organizations are as interested in the 
 public welfare as the motion picture business, yet the Federal ' 
 Trade Commission is still functioning to good effect, and without 
 too much hardship on the better groups under their supervision. 
 
 Finally, state censorship is claimed to be unnecessary for the 
 reason that the necessary censoring could be done more efficiently 
 by the producers themselves at the source. The most practical 
 way of doing this which has as yet been evolved is that of volun- 
 tary co-operation with the public through the National Board of 
 Review in New York City. As has been previously shown, 
 mere recommendation of eliminations without power of com- 
 pelling compliance is at best an ineffective weapon to use against 
 an institution so widespread and powerful as motion pictures. 
 
 The remaining arguments against legal censorship are that it 
 is impossible for any legally constituted body to decide what 
 the people should and what they should not see; that censorship 
 ruins the plays; that censorship is for the protection of children, 
 and should not apply to all plays, since adults also have rights; 
 that censorship officials have proved incompetent in the past, 
 and therefore always will; and that boards of censorship are 
 after all only allowed to exist because they furnish sinecures for 
 the friends of the political powers that be, and are consequently 
 a source of graft. These, with the previously mentioned argu- 
 ments, seem to be the most important evidences which have been 
 brought forth against censorship by the motion picture industry. * 
 
 1 The National Board of Review in its campaign for "selection, not censor- 
 ship" as the solution of motion picture problems, holds that censorship, state 
 and federal, has been rejected for the following reasons: 
 
 "Censorship is an invasion of consitutional rights" in that it limits freedom 
 
 of speech and the press; it is a "defiance of democratic principles" because it 
 
 empowers a small group to decide what the people may see, and "takes away 
 
 ' from local authorities who are elected by the people power to regulate the 
 
 -pictures shown in their own communities"; it is a failure because there is 
 
 no hope of censors' uniform decisions, as has been shown by not uncommon 
 
 disagreements between existing censors; it is undesirable because there is "nox
 
 I 
 
 78 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 They have been culled from a large number of articles in trade 
 journals, from speeches before legislatures, committees of inves- 
 tigation, and other more general audiences by the defenders of 
 freedom of production; and from the more formal arguments 
 which the legal advisors of the industry have laid before the 
 courts and voters of this country. It would be reasonable to 
 suppose that in the case where a bill for state censorship which 
 had passed the legislature of that state and was up for con- 
 sideration by the voters at an election to decide whether or not 
 it should go into effect, the briefs for and against the bill filed 
 with the secretary of the commonwealth in accordance with the 
 law would contain the very best of the evidence on the subject 
 under contest. Such a bill is pending in Massachusetts at the 
 present time, yet the arguments on both sides filed with the 
 Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are given 
 without reference to supporting facts, and in many cases would 
 be difficult of proof. 
 
 There is considerable basis for the statement that it is practi- 
 cally impossible for any legally constituted body of officials 
 properly to decide what should and what should not be shown 
 on the screen. Opinions will vary, especially in different parts of 
 the country. They will even vary as between members of the 
 same board. Examples of this are not uncommon, and are not 
 infrequently brought forth to show the impracticability of any 
 legal censorship. It might be mentioned that it is not altogether 
 an uncommon occurrence for judges of the highest court in the 
 United States to disagree, yet the court is still functioning in a 
 valuable way. While boards of censors do have differences of 
 
 popular demand for censorship"; it is unjust because "Compared with 
 other forms of dramatic entertainment, the motion picture is the least objec- 
 tionable on the score of morals. To single it out for censorship, therefore, 
 is on the face of it indefensibly unjust and stupid"; lastly, "censorship is no 
 solution for the child problem," because it cannot eliminate melodrama or 
 make the screen a "commendable entertainment for children," and in the 
 second place, "nobody has any business to try to do this." 
 
 f' National Board of Review of Motion Pictures, A Garden of American 
 
 I Motion Pictures, January 1920, p. 24.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 79 
 
 opinion, as to the moral value of individual scenes or pictures, 
 it is difference not in the fundamental principles involved, but 
 in the occasional application of standards which have been shown 
 to be generally accepted. These differences are therefore not 
 such as to render the boards any more useless than differences of 
 opinion of the members of the United States Supreme Court 
 render that court useless. They are differences of interpretation 
 which will iron themselves out as such questions are more and 
 more freely discussed. It must not be forgotten, however, that 
 there is cause for dissatisfaction in so far as these differences of 
 interpretation are due to incompetency, carelessness and wilful 
 disregard of duty for personal reasons. 
 
 Many plays have been ruined by the slashing of the censors, 
 with an attendant loss to the producers. Much of the slashing 
 has been of doubtful value. It is doubtful whether the elimina- 
 tion of scenes in which Carmen was shown smoking was necessary 
 in order to protect minds in the making. There are innumerable 
 other equally ludicrous examples of narrow-minded censorship 
 by officials who were unfitted for the positions they held. But 
 such errors are a small part of the work done, and are outweighed 
 by other better advised acts. l In the report of the Pennsyl- 
 vania Board of Censors for the year ending November 30, 1918, 
 
 1 Titles of motion picture plays, like titles of books and legitimate drama, 
 are not always truly representative of the contents, but there is in most 
 cases a correlation between name and subject matter. Some indication of the 
 kind of picture the Pennsylvania censors eliminate may therefore be gained 
 from the following titles of subjects disapproved by them. This list is taken 
 at random from a complete enumeration of disapproved subjects, and is 
 typical of the entire list. 
 
 "The Toreadors," "Traffic in Souls," "Traffickers on Soles," "Trapped in 
 the Great Metropolis, " "The Triumph of Venus," "Trooper 44," "True 
 Love, or the Mighty Prince," "The Truth about Twilight Sleep," "Twi- 
 light," "Twilight Sleep," "The Unborn," "Unfaithful," "The Un- 
 pardonable Sin," "Up from the depths." 
 
 The list of which these titles formed a part was one of over three hundred 
 similar titles of disapproved subjects, and they are in no way exceptional. 
 
 List of Disapproved Subjects, Pennsylvania State Board of Censors, 1921.
 
 80 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 thirteen appeals are listed as having been taken from decisions 
 by the board to the courts of the state. In none of these cases 
 was the judgment of the board reversed. These appeals cover 
 the period from August 1915 until June 1918, or almost three 
 years, yet in that time, in spite of the constant efforts to show 
 the inefficiency of censorship, the courts did not once consider the 
 board to have been in error, according to the report of the 
 Pennsylvania Board of Censors. Immediately upon the taking 
 of office by the New York board, a storm of protest against its 
 decisions was raised by the industry. Thus far no decision of 
 the New York board has been reversed by the New York Courts. 
 Had there been any grave cause for complaint it is not unreason- 
 able to assume that the courts would have recognized it in their 
 decisions. 
 
 The chairman of the Kansas board of censors receives an 
 annual salary of eighteen hundred dollars; the other members 
 receive fifteen hundred dollars. The Pennsylvania Act of 1915 
 provides that the chairman shall receive three thousand dollars, 
 the vice-chairman, two thousand, five hundred dollars, and the 
 secretary, two thousand, four hundred dollars. Under the Ohio 
 act of 1915 each member of the board received fifteen hundred 
 dollars. The pay in Maryland was fixed by the legislature at 
 twenty-four hundred dollars. These are in sharp contrast to 
 the recent New York statute, which fixes the remumeration of 
 each commissioner at seven thousand, five hundred dollars. 
 These figures furnish an explanation of some of the things that 
 have happened in the various states. In the first four states 
 named above it has been impossible to get men of first-class 
 calibre to take the office of censor unless, as has notably been the 
 case in two or three instances, some person of ability happened 
 to be willing to sacrifice money and time in order to be able to 
 be of service. In New York State, where the salaries were 
 adequate it turned out that the three censorship offices were 
 much too valuable as political plums to waste on people who 
 were not politically valuable to the appointing power, and the 
 consequent appointment of three people not entirely unknown 
 politically to a position needing men and women of "training and
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 81 
 
 education fitting them for the duties of the office" was not 
 unexpected, though in fairness it must be added that the New 
 York Board has done well in the brief time it has been func- 
 tioning. 
 
 The claim that the cost of censorship is too great a burden is 
 hardly worthy of consideration. Censorship boards belong to 
 that increasing group of state departments which are self-sup- 
 porting in that they need no appropriations from the state 
 treasury for their support. Fees of from one to three dollars 
 for the approval of each reel of 1,000 feet of film, together with 
 fines for violations of censorship regulations, have been found to 
 be sufficient for the payment of the salaries and incidental 
 expenses connected with the carrying out of censoring duties. 
 In view of the large salaries paid to stars, the large rentals 
 charged for films, and the general prosperity of the industry, it 
 would be difficult to show that even much greater charges would 
 materially affect its welfare. 1 Most of the protests against 
 censorship are founded on assumptions or facts which are so 
 weak that the conclusions drawn from them are of little value, 
 and the claim that censorship costs are in excess of the resultant 
 value is possibly the worst founded of all. 
 
 1 The general arguments against censorship are so well known that they 
 require only brief comment here. More detailed information may be ob- 
 tained from the following sources: 
 
 Chicago Motion Picture Commission, Report of, September, 1920. 
 
 New York State Conference of Mayors, Report of the Special Committee on 
 Motion Pictures, Albany, N. Y., February 24, 1920. 
 
 General Federation of Women's Clubs, General Federation Magazine, 
 Vol. XVIII, No. 1, January, 1919, pp. 13 to 26 incl. 
 
 House of Representatives, Hearing before the Committee on Education on 
 H. R. 456, January 13-19, 1916. 
 
 National Board of Review of Motion Pictures, Objections to State Cen- 
 sorship of Motion Pictures, January, 1920; The Case Against Federal 
 Censorship of Motion Pictures, and other pamphlet and mimeographed 
 material on the subject which may be obtained from the National Board 
 apparently without limit.
 
 82 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 IX 
 
 SUMMARY 
 
 Ii is unessential that any evidence be advanced to show that 
 the type of picture seen by motion picture audiences consisting 
 of millions of people of all ages and conditions influences their 
 thoughts and their subsequent activities. The belief that man's 
 conduct is the invariable result of the interaction of environment 
 and heredity is too widely accepted today to require any addi- 
 tional substantiating material. We may consider the principle 
 an established fact and make use of it as such by assuming 
 without a mass of detailed facts as proof that what is shown on 
 the motion picture screen will have a character-molding influence 
 of those who see it. 
 
 An analysis of standards of human conduct has been made in 
 an effort to discover a measure whereby to judge the type of 
 picture which is being shown in American motion picture theatres. 
 It was found that there existed a remarkable unanimity of 
 opinion among all interested groups, including the most vigorous 
 opponents of government censorship, concerning conduct 
 'C v j/ believed to be harmful to society. The origin and function of 
 moral codes both lie in group survival, and the forbidden acts 
 are determined by group opinion to be those which are believed, 
 ' correctly or otherwise, to be detrimental to its existence. If any 
 civilized society is agreed on certain activities as being worthy of 
 its tabu it is of doubtful importance in a study of social legisla- 
 tion to inquire into their actual survival value. In the case 
 under consideration practical agreement has been found to exist 
 among those concerned, and it is only necessary for our purposes 
 to see to what extent, if at all, the accepted standards are being 
 violated in motion picture plays. 
 
 From a comparison of the results of numerous independent 
 investigations of motion pictures within recent years no other 
 conclusion can be reached than that many violations of the 
 acknowledged desirable social standards are continually being
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 83 
 
 shown on the screen in most communities without any penalty, 
 legal or social, being inflicted on those responsible for their 
 exhibition. An estimate placing the number of pictures tending 
 to have a harmful effect on motion picture patrons at 20 per cent. \ 
 does not seem to be too high in the light of the evidence offered 
 by the only reliable social studies available. It is these pictures I 
 which necessitate some form of control. 1 
 
 We must not, however, fall into two common errors, errors of 
 extremist reformers who have neglected, possibly willfully, to 
 establish scientific foundations for their recommendations. It' 
 seems to be frequently assumed that motion picture producers, 
 exhibitors and actors are different from the rest of us, that they 
 are largely moral degenerates who would take joy in perverting 
 the screen by sordid pictures even though there were no financial 
 gain involved. The newspaper gossip of drunkenness, murders 
 and gay life among the members of the industry is pointed out 
 as evidence of this moral perversion, and sermons have been 
 preached, legislation has been proposed, not against the few 
 under suspicion but against the entire industry. Such reasoning 
 is of course entirely fallacious and barely worth mentioning, for 
 only a small, though annoying following can be acquired and 
 held through the spreading of such unfounded general slander. 
 That the motion picture people, business men, directors and 
 actors, are neither better nor worse than the rest of the popula- 
 tion must be acknowledged by anyone who has come into any 
 considerable contact with them, and would not need space here 
 were it not for the ever present fanatic. To call attention to 
 this error is sufficient to dispose of it. 
 
 The second common error of reformers is the basing of decisions 
 concerning the influence of motion pictures on insufficient or 
 
 1 The National Board of Motion Pictures Review is probably one of the 
 most oflf^ervaHve bodies which pass on motion pictures with regard to the 
 number of eliminations requested. A few samples of their eliminations, 
 selected at random, indicative of what may be shown in 42 states of the 
 Union without legal penalty, are quoted in Appendix E.
 
 84 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 unscientific evidence. 1 To go to motion picture theatres a 
 few times and then absolve or condemn all productions sounds 
 foolish, yet too often that is exactly what is done. Considering 
 the present size of the industry which is releasing for distribution 
 to exhibitors over fifteen feature pictures and any number of 
 shorter subjects every week it is evident that no one man is 
 qualified to pass judgment unless he has devoted more time than 
 the ordinary critic to the study of the situation. He must rely 
 on what has been found by such investigations as have been 
 mentioned in a previous chapter. It is to be regretted that 
 they are as few and as inaccessible as they are. These investi- 
 gations while they have their faults are a relatively safe indica- 
 tion of the trend in motion pictures if they are properly weighted 
 with reference to the undesirable peculiarities which every report 
 has in the way of personal, religious or sectional bias, unwise 
 sampling, and the like. The records of the eliminations of legal 
 boards of censorship are also available in many cases and furnish 
 good indication of the undesirable features in motion pictures 
 in the sections which do not have censorship, since the same 
 pictures are shown in all parts of the country with comparatively 
 
 1 An example of the type of investigation the value of which is considerably 
 lowered by the use of too many untrained, unco-ordinated apparently randomly 
 selected investigators whose judgments were based on vague and possibly 
 unfortunate standards of conduct, is that made in Portland, Oregon, in 
 1914, the results of which were published in the Reed College Record, No. 16, 
 September, 1914. 
 
 An equally unsatisfactory investigation made by means of the questionnaire 
 method by one of the leading producers of the country has just been completed. 
 The questionnaire was sent broadcast to all parts of the world where American 
 pictures are shown. It is a well-known fact that people engaged in literary 
 work are overwhelmingly opposed to censorship yet it seems that an impartial 
 answer to the question "Do picturegoers make a more efficient censorship 
 authority than a politically controlled committee?" was asked. It is to be 
 wondered what particular qualification newspaper editors have for answering 
 the question "What has been the influence of the motion picture on home 
 and community life during the past ten years?" See, Moving Picture World, 
 Vol. LV, No. 5, April 1, 1922.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 85 
 
 little elimination save by censors. Inaccurate observations and 
 unjustified interpretations are important causes of avoidable 
 difficulties between the factions interested, and with many 
 sources of information available as there are to those who are 
 
 willing to hunt, such errors are inexcusable. 
 
 i * ft 
 
 r ^ .-< t^fff 
 
 Granting that mistakes by reformers and others have been 
 numerous, it must nevertheless be admitted that all is not as it j^ ,.' 
 should be and that some means of eliminating a relatively infre- 
 quent though important type of picture should be put into effect 
 throughout the country. One of the most glibly offered sugges- 
 tions is that education is the only sound solution to the problem. 
 Parents, for example, must be educated so that they will be the 
 censors for their children. It is not the function, say the 
 adherents to this policy, of the state to usurp the offices of par- 
 ents, but only to train them so that they may perform their 
 natural duties in the best possible way. This assumes that 
 censorship is for children only and that the present difficulties are 
 not of such importance as to require any immediate action, 
 neither of which assumptions has been shown to be accurate. 
 It is education, say these same people, that must raise the 
 standards to such a high moral plane that the motion picture 
 industry will be compelled to produce only clean pictures on 
 account of the general boycotting which all others will receive. 
 Some of the difficulties with this program are that this again 
 overlooks the immediate problems, that the pictures are them- 
 selves a part of our educational system and to some extent 
 afford exactly the wrong type of education, and that human 
 ingenuity .has never succeeded is entirely eliminating the morally 
 "submerged tenth" from any fair-sized civilization. Until these 
 objections are overcome education can only be a part, though a 
 not unimportant part, in any well rounded program for the 
 social regulation of motion pictures. 
 
 / 
 / 
 
 ' 
 
 Thejchurch has also been suggested as the agency by means of 
 which the undesirable motion pictures may be removed from our
 
 86 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 theatres. J The objections which apply to education as the 
 sole means of purification also apply to the use of this institution 
 without the support of some other agency for the handling of 
 the stubborn minority which cannot be reached through moral 
 exhortation. 
 
 . Another group of people who might be described as adherents 
 / to the theory of natural law believe that if left to herself nature 
 will work out her own salvation. Public opinion, it is said, will 
 eventually force undesirable pictures out of the market without 
 any teleological interference by reformers. A time will come 
 when if the pictures of today are detrimental to the social group 
 they will by the very nature of things be driven out without any 
 prohibitory legislation. While there is an appreciable element 
 of truth in this belief, its adherents forget that it is largely 
 through the efforts of objectors to things as they are that they 
 ' : are changed to an approximation of what they should be. It is 
 also forgotten, as it is by every other opponent to legal control of 
 motion pictures, that as we have already mentioned several 
 times, we cannot hope to have all people govern their activities 
 in accordance with the needs of social welfare without some 
 means of compelling the small fringe of outlaws to become law 
 abiding. We have general agreement in the general principle 
 of the sanctity of human life but policemen are needed to keep 
 down the number of violations of the principle by the few who 
 
 1 The publications of the National Board of Review continually stress the 
 strength of motion pictures in the fields of education, religion and general 
 training. For example, see the Bulletin of the Affiliated Committees for 
 Better Films, Vol. IV, No. 8, September 1920; Vol. II, No. 9, October, 1918; 
 Vol. V, No. 7, July, 1921; Vol. II, No. 7, July, 1918. 
 
 The manner in which the Women's Alliance has attempted to handle the 
 
 f motion picture problem, and it has met with considerable success, through the 
 
 formation of committees of representatives of churches, schools, clubs and 
 
 others, including the managers of theatres included in the district of each 
 
 ^ committee, and through co-operation with the National Board of Review, is 
 
 outlined in the Social Hygiene Bulletin, Vol. VIII, No. 6, June 1921. A 
 
 summary of this is included in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 
 
 Vol. XII, No. 2, August 1921.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 87 
 
 for some reason are not willing to conform. We cannot hope 
 that a policy of non interference will work out satisfactorily any 
 more than will a purely educationsl policy, or a chucrh guardian- 
 ship of morals policy, no matter how desirable in the abstract 
 any one of these policies would be. They are necessary as a 
 part of a constructive program, but with motion pictures and 
 human personality as they are today some negative program is 
 also required. 
 
 The National Board of Review of Motion pictures as a negative 
 and a positive agency has also been discussed, as have some of the 
 most important variations of legal control. It has been found 
 that the National Board has not been successful and cannot 
 succeed in the purpose for which it was created. The very 
 change in its emphasis from censorship to review to selection is 
 evidence that it has fallen down in its attempt to deal with the 
 situation. While it can be a great positive influence in the "1 
 industry through its selective program, it is evident that what is 
 needed for it to be considered the only necessary agency of 
 control is some power to compel obedience. The state alone j 
 has that power. ~" 
 
 It would seem desirable at first glance to have uniform control ) 
 of motion pictures through the federal government throughout 
 the entire United States. However at the present time this 
 would be inadvisable due to the differences of public opinion on 
 the principle of censorship and to the lack of existing and pro- 
 posed feasible means for recognizing that pictures which are 
 passable in so far as one section of the country is concerned may ' 
 result in racial trouble, labor difficulties or other mob violence 
 when shown in another section. Federal censorship legislation, 
 or uniform state legislation, is the goal towards which the efforts 
 of those who have the welfare of the nation at heart should 
 strive, but until some means of centralization of authority and 
 localization of administration is devised a federal censorship act 
 would be unfortunate. 
 
 Meanwhile, the local units of government must be relied 
 upon to protect the community against the outlaw picture. 
 There are in all states and cities officials who have the authority 

 
 88 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 to prohibit the showing of lewd and immoral pictures, but due to 
 pressure of other duties or disinclination to interfere in a field 
 where regulation has always stirred up such violent reactions 
 from powerful sources, these local officials have not acted when 
 they were not compelled to do so. Whatever the cause, 
 existing public officials, chosen without specific reference to 
 motion picture regulation, have not been successful in hand- 
 ling the motion picture problem as a side line to their other 
 work. When members of the police force, for example, 
 have been specially assigned to the regulation of motion 
 pictures, a considerable degree of success has been achieved, 
 as in Chicago, but separate state censorship boards, not so 
 readily accessible to all theforces which all too frequently 
 interfere with our municipal protective officials, have achieved 
 better results, not only because they are less subject to external 
 pressure but also because the state is a much better administra- 
 tive unit from the point of view of the industry and of the censor 
 than the city. Some degree of unity is required, and since we 
 have shown the United States to be too large to be included 
 under one system under present conditions, and since there 
 are too many cities of varying social and political colors for any 
 great agreement of action to exist if each were to have a separate 
 board of censorship, the state is the logical choice as the present 
 regulative unit. 
 
 The contentions that censorship is unconstitutional, that it 
 violates the American principle of freedom of speech and of the 
 press, that it is unjust discrimination in view of the fact that 
 theatres are not similarly censored, that it is expensive to the 
 taxpayer and to the industry beyond its value to the nation, 
 that it cannot be put into effect on account of the lack of stand- 
 ards whereby to judge, and that it has failed where tried, cannot 
 be said to be supported by the facts in the case. The records of 
 the four state boards which have been functioning for a number 
 of years if studied contain sufficient material to overthrow these 
 arguments. Not all of the evidence on all of these points has 
 been included in this treatise. Space would not permit. Much 
 more, however, has been considered than has been cited, and 
 there has been a conscientious attempt to present a fair view of
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 89 
 
 the field. The evidence has been carefully weighed, and the 
 opponents of legal censorship have been given the benefit of every 
 doubt. The only possible conclusion is that legal censorship is 
 justified by conditions in the motion picture industry which have 
 been unavoidable, and that for many years to come the most 
 desirable form of censorship will be that which is under 
 direct state control.
 
 90 
 
 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 APPENDIXES 
 
 APPENDIX A 
 
 By a compilation made by the Morosco interests, and printed 
 in the Philadelphia Evening Ledger, September 9, 1921, the 
 number of motion picture theatres in the country was found to 
 be 17,824, distributed by cities and states as follows: 
 
 IN TWENTY-NINE CHIEF CITIES 
 
 Greater New York 604 
 
 Chicago 345 
 
 Philadelphia 194 
 
 Detroit 168 
 
 Cleveland 157 
 
 Pittsburgh 121 
 
 Los Angeles 102 
 
 St. Louis 100 
 
 Baltimore 96 
 
 Buffalo 89 
 
 San Francisco 86 
 
 Minneapolis 75 
 
 Milwaukee 66 
 
 Indianapolis 61 
 
 Boston 60 
 
 Portland, Ore 51 
 
 Newark, N. J 51 
 
 Syracuse 51 
 
 Kansas City 49 
 
 Washington 48 
 
 New Orleans 48 
 
 Columbus, O 45 
 
 Seattle. . . 
 Oakland. . 
 Cincinnati . 
 St. Paul . . 
 Rochester . 
 Denver. . . 
 Omaha. . 
 
 45 
 44 
 42 
 42 
 42 
 40 
 35 
 
 IN THE STATES 
 
 Alabama 196 Georgia 219 
 
 Arizona 93 Idaho 158 
 
 Arkansas 239 Illinois 1027 
 
 California 676 Indiana 602 
 
 Colorado 260 
 
 Connecticut... 122 
 
 Iowa. . 
 
 Kansas . 
 
 359 
 429 
 
 Delaware 35 Kentucky 252 
 
 Florida 158 Louisiana.. 241
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 
 
 91 
 
 Maine 255 
 
 Maryland 177 
 
 Massachusetts 558 
 
 Michigan 459 
 
 Minnesota 618 
 
 Mississippi 118 
 
 Missouri 681 
 
 Montana 161 
 
 Nebraska 481 
 
 Nevada 30 
 
 New Hampshire 132 
 
 New Jersey 370 
 
 New Mexico 84 
 
 New York 1695 
 
 North Carolina 203 
 
 North Dakota .. 315 
 
 Ohio 1095 
 
 Oklahoma 343 
 
 Oregon 249 
 
 Pennsylvania 1533 
 
 Rhode Island 49 
 
 South Carolina 119 
 
 South Dakota 246 
 
 Tennessee 198 
 
 Texas 839 
 
 Utah 157 
 
 Vermont 53 
 
 Virginia 396 
 
 Washington 343 
 
 West Virginia 191 
 
 Wisconsin 498 
 
 Wyoming 67 
 
 APPENDIX B 
 
 Comparative imports of Motion-Picture Film into the United 
 States from all Countries and from Five European Countries 
 (England, France, Italy, Germany, and the United Kingdom), 
 for Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 1911 to 1918, and Calendar 
 Years 1918 to 1921. 
 
 YEARS 
 1911.. 
 
 1912.. 
 1913.. 
 1914.. 
 1915.. 
 1916.. 
 1917.. 
 1918.. 
 1919.. 
 1919.. 
 1920.. 
 192 Ib. 
 
 ALL 
 
 SELECTED 
 
 COUNTRIES 
 
 COUNTRIES 
 
 LINEAR FEET 
 
 LINEAR FEET 
 
 (a) 
 
 (a) 
 
 (a) 
 
 (a) 
 
 (a) 
 
 (a) 
 
 44,717,000 
 
 44,243,000 
 
 61,402,000 
 
 61,401,000 
 
 58,491,000 
 
 58,488,000 
 
 52,294,000 
 
 52,292,000 
 
 47,463,000 
 
 47,368,000 
 
 25,709,000 
 
 25,614,000 
 
 13,747,000 
 
 13,502,000 
 
 99,829,000 
 
 99,716,000 
 
 122,975,000 
 
 120,551,000
 
 92 
 
 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 EXPOSED 
 
 ALL SELECTED 
 
 YEARS COUNTRIES COUNTRIES 
 
 LINEAR FEET LINEAR FEET 
 
 1911 11,725,000 10,422,000 
 
 1912 14,275,000 12,710,000 
 
 1913 15,674,000 13,880,000 
 
 1914 20,057,000 18,106,000 
 
 1915 10,789,000 9,150,000 
 
 1916 7,507,000 6,520,000 
 
 1917 5,835,000 3,738,000 
 
 1918 4,088,000 3,191,000 
 
 1919 2,268,000 1,670,000 
 
 1919 2,920,000 2,002,000 
 
 1920 6,233,000 4,385,000 
 
 1921b 7,375,000 5,601,000 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 ALL SELECTED 
 
 YEARS COUNTRIES COUNTRIES 
 
 LINEAR FEET LINEAR FEET 
 
 1911 11,725,000 10,422,000 
 
 1912 14,275,000 12,710,000 
 
 1913 15,674,000 13,880,000 
 
 1914 64,774,000 62,349,000 
 
 1915 72,192,000 70,551,000 
 
 1916 65,998,000 65,008,000 
 
 1917 58,130,000 56,029,000 
 
 1918 51,551,000 50,559,000 
 
 1919 27,977,000 27,314,000 
 
 1919 16,667,000 15,505,000 
 
 1920 106,062,000 104,091,000 
 
 1921b 130,349,000 126,152,000 
 
 a Figures prior to 1914 are not available, 
 b Nine months ending Sept. 30. 
 
 Imports of Motion-Picture Film into the United States for 
 Fiscal Years Ending June 30, 1911 to 1918, and for Calendar 
 Years 1918 to 1921.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 
 
 93 
 
 YEARS 
 
 LINEAR FEET 
 
 VALUE 
 
 1911 
 
 11,725,000 
 
 $685,000 
 
 1912 
 
 14,275,000 
 
 1,004,000 
 
 1913 
 
 15,674,000 
 
 1,331,000 
 
 1914 
 
 20,057,000 
 
 1,412,000 
 
 1915 
 
 10,789,000 
 
 671,000 
 
 1916 
 
 7,507,000 
 
 482,000 
 
 1917 
 
 5,835,000 
 
 675,000 
 
 1918 
 
 4,088,000 
 
 343,000 
 
 1919 
 
 2,268,000 
 
 293,000 
 
 1919 
 
 2,920,000 
 
 500,000 
 
 1920 
 
 6,233,000 
 
 933,000 
 
 1921b 
 
 7,375,000 
 
 1,060,000 
 
 YEARS 
 
 1911 
 
 LINEAR FEET 
 
 (a) 
 
 VALUE 
 
 (a) 
 
 1912 
 
 (a) 
 
 (a) 
 
 1913 
 
 (a) 
 
 (a) 
 
 1914 
 
 44,717,000 
 
 $890,000 
 
 1915 
 
 61,402,000 
 
 968,000 
 
 1916 
 
 58,491,000 
 
 750,000 
 
 1917 
 
 52,294,000 
 
 802,000 
 
 1918 
 
 47,463,000 
 
 739,000 
 
 1919 
 
 25,709,000 
 
 420,000 
 
 1919 
 
 13,747,000 
 
 283,000 
 
 1920 
 
 99,829,000 
 
 1,698,000 
 
 1921b 
 
 122,975,000 
 
 2,338,000 
 
 YEARS 
 1911 
 
 LINEAR FEET 
 11,725,000 
 
 VALUE 
 
 $685,000 
 
 1912 
 
 14,275,000 
 
 1,004,000 
 
 1913 
 
 15,674,000 
 
 1,331,000 
 
 1914 
 
 64,774,000 
 
 2,302,000 
 
 1915 
 
 72,192,000 
 
 1,639,000 
 
 1916 
 
 65,998,000 
 
 1,232,000 
 
 1917 
 
 58,130,000 
 
 1,478,000 
 
 1918 
 
 51,551,000 
 
 1,082,000
 
 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 1919.. 
 1919.. 
 1920.. 
 1921b. 
 
 27,977,000 713,000 
 
 16,667,000 783,000 
 
 106,062,000 2,631,000 
 
 130,349,000 3,397,000 
 
 a Figures not available prior to 1914. 
 b Nine months ending Sept. 30. 
 
 United States Exports of Motion-Picture Film for Fiscal 
 Years Ending June 30, 1913 to 1918, and Calendar Years 1918 
 to 1921. 
 
 YEARS 
 1913 
 
 EXPOSED 
 LINEAR FEET 
 
 32,192,000 
 
 UNEXPOSED 
 LINEAR FEET 
 
 80,035,000 
 
 TOTAL 
 LINEAR FEET 
 
 112,227,000 
 
 1914 
 
 32,690,000 
 
 155,360 000 
 
 192,050,000 
 
 1915 
 
 35,987,000 
 
 115,067,000 
 
 150,054,000 
 
 1916 
 
 158,752,000 
 
 72,299,000 
 
 231,051,000 
 
 1917 
 
 128,550,000 
 
 49,486 000 
 
 178,036,000 
 
 1918 
 
 84,547,000 
 
 57,995,000 
 
 142,542,000 
 
 1918 
 
 79,888,000 
 
 71,549,000 
 
 151,437,000 
 
 1919 
 
 153,237,000 
 
 120,042,000 
 
 273,279 000 
 
 1920.... 
 
 175,233,000 
 
 62 915 000 
 
 238 148 000 
 
 1921.. 
 
 111.585.000 
 
 31.015.000 
 
 142.600.000 
 
 a Nine months ending Sept. 30. 
 U. S. Department of Commerce, Commerce Reports, January 2, 1922, p. 34 ff . 
 
 APPENDIX C 
 English Censorship Rules 
 
 Pictures containing the following are condemned: 
 
 (1) Materialization of the conventional figure of Christ. 
 
 (2) Unauthorized use of Royal names, public characters, and 
 
 well-known members of society. 
 
 (3) Inflammatory political sub-titles. 
 
 (4) Indecorous and inexpedient titles and sub-titles. 
 
 (5) Sub-titles in the nature of swearing. 
 
 (6) Cruelty to animals, including cock-fights.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 95 
 
 (7) Irreverent treatment of religious observances and beliefs. 
 
 (8) Making young girls drunk. 
 
 (9) Excessive drunkenness. 
 
 (10) Brutality and torture to women. 
 
 (11) Subjects in which crime is the dominant feature. 
 
 (12) Commitment of crime by children. 
 
 (13) Criminal poisoning by dissemination of germs. 
 
 (14) The practice of the third degree in the United States. 
 
 (15) Cumulative effect of crime. 
 
 (16) Murders with realistic and gruesome details. 
 
 (17) Executions and crucifixions. 
 
 (18) Cruelty to children. 
 
 (19) Excessive cruelty and torture to adults. 
 
 (20) Fights showing extreme brutality and gruesome details. 
 
 (21) Gruesome incidents. 
 
 (22) Actual scenes of branding men and animals. 
 
 (23) Women fighting with knives. 
 
 (24) Doubtful characters exalted to heroes. 
 
 (25) Nude figures. 
 
 (26) Offensive vulgarity and indecent gestures. 
 
 (27) Improper exhibition of feminine underclothing. 
 
 (28) Impropriety in dress. 
 
 (29) Indecorous dancing. 
 
 (30) Reference to controversial or international politics. 
 
 (31) Scenes calculated to inflame racial hatred. 
 
 (32) Incidents having a tendency to disparage friendly rela- 
 
 tions with our Allies. 
 
 (33) Scenes dealing with India and other Dependencies by 
 
 which the religious beliefs and racial susceptibilities of 
 their people may be wounded. 
 
 (34) Antagonistic relations of Capital and Labour and scenes 
 
 showing conflict between the protagonists. 
 
 (35) Scenes tending to disparage public characters and public 
 
 institutions. 
 
 (36) Disparagement of the institution of marriage. 
 
 (37) Misrepresentation of police methods. 
 
 (38) Holding up the King's uniform to contempt or ridicule.
 
 96 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 (39) Scenes in which British officers are seen in a discreditable 
 
 light in their relations with Eastern peoples. 
 
 (40) Prolonged and harrowing details in deathbed scenes. 
 
 (41) Medical operations. 
 
 (42) Excessive revolver shooting. 
 
 (43) Advocacy of the doctrine of free love. 
 
 (44) Seduction of girls and attempts thereat treated without 
 
 due restraint. 
 
 (45) Attempted criminal assaults on women. 
 
 (46) Scenes indicating that a criminal assault on a woman 
 
 has just been perpetrated. 
 
 (47) Salacious wit. 
 
 (48) "First night" scenes. 
 
 (49) Scenes dealing with, or suggestive of, immorality. 
 
 (50) Indelicate sexual situations. 
 
 (51) Holding up the sacrifice of a woman's virtue as laudable. 
 
 (52) Infidelity on the part of husband justifying adultery on 
 
 the part of wife. 
 
 (53) Bedroom and bathroom scenes of an equivocal character. 
 
 (54) Prostitution and procuration. 
 
 (55) Effect of venereal disease, inherited or acquired. 
 
 (56) Confinements and puerperal pains. 
 
 (57) Illegal operations. 
 
 (58) Deliberate adoption of a life of immorality, justifiable or 
 
 extenuated. 
 
 (59) Disorderly houses. 
 
 (60) Women promiscuously taking up men. 
 
 (61) Dead bodies. 
 
 (62) "Clutching hands." 
 
 (63) Subjects in which sympathy is enlisted for the criminals. 
 
 (64) Animals gnawing men and children. 
 
 (65) Realistic scenes of epilepsy. 
 
 (66) Trial scenes of important personages that are sub judice. 
 
 (67) Suggestion of incest. 
 
 The Times, London, Supplement, February 21, 1922, p. x.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 97 
 
 APPENDIX D 
 STANDARDS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF CENSORS 
 
 (1) The Board will condemn pictures, and parts of pictures, 
 dealing with "white slavery". The procuration and prostitution 
 in all forms, of girls, and their confinement for immoral purposes 
 may not be shown upon the screen, and will be disapproved. 
 Views of prostitutes and houses of ill-fame will be disapproved. 
 
 (2) Pictures, and parts of pictures, which deal with the seduc- i 
 tion of women, particularly the betrayal of young girls, and > 
 assaults upon women, with immoral intent, will be disapproved. 
 
 (3) Pre-natal and childbed scenes, and subtitles describing 
 them, will be disapproved. 
 
 (4) Pictures, and parts of pictures, dealing with the drug 
 habit; e. g., t e use of opium, morphine, cocaine, etc., will be / 
 disapproved. The traffic in habit-forming drugs is forbidden 
 and visualized scenes of their use will be disapproved. 
 
 (5) Scenes showing the modus operandi of criminals which 
 are suggestive and incite to evil action, such as murder, poison- 
 ing, house-breaking, safe-robbery, pocket-picking, the lighting 
 and throwing of bombs, the use of ether, chloroform, etc., to 
 render men and women unconscious, binding and gagging, will 
 be disapproved. 
 
 (6) Gruesome and unduly distressing scenes will be disap- 
 proved. These include shooting, stabbing, profuse bleeding, 
 prolonged views of men dying and of corpses, lashing and whip- 
 ping, and other torture scenes, hangings, lynchings, electrocu- 
 tions, surgical operations, and views of persons in delirium or 
 insane. 
 
 (7) Studio and other scenes, in which the human form is 
 shown in the nude or the body is unduly exposed, will be dis- 
 approved. 
 
 (8) Pictures, and parts of pictures, dealing with abortion and 
 malpractice, will be disapproved. These will include themse j 
 and incidents having to do with eugenics, "birth control", ' 
 "race suicide" and similar subjects.
 
 98 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 (9) Stories, or scenes holding up to ridicule and reproach 
 races, classes, or other social groups, as well as the irreverent and 
 
 sacrilegious treatment of religious bodies or other things held 
 to be sacred will be disapproved. The materialization of the 
 figure of Christ may be disapproved. 
 
 (10) Pictures which deal with counterfeiting, will be dis- 
 approved. 
 
 /(ll) Scenes showing men and women living together without 
 marriage, and in adultery, will be disapproved. Discussion of 
 the question of the consummation of marriage, in pictures, will 
 be disapproved. 
 
 (12) The brutal treatment of children and of animals may 
 lead to the disapproval of the theme, or of incidents in film 
 stories. 
 
 (13) The use of profane and objectionable language in sub- 
 titles, will be disapproved. 
 
 (14) Objectionable titles, as well as subtitles of pictures, will 
 be disapproved. 
 
 (15) Views of incendiarism, burning, wrecking and the 
 / destruction of property, which may put like action into the 
 
 / minds of those of evil instincts, or may degrade the morals of 
 
 the young, will be disapproved. 
 
 < (16) Gross and offensive drunkenness, especially if women 
 have a part in the scenes, will be disapproved. 
 
 (17) Pictures which deal at length with gun play, and the use 
 of knives, and are set in the underworld, will be disapproved. 
 
 'When the whole theme is crime, unrelieved by other scenes, the 
 film will be disapproved. Prolonged fighting scenes will be 
 shortened, and brutal fights will be wholly disapproved. 
 
 (18) Vulgarities of a gross kind, such as often appear in 
 slapstick and other screen comedies, will be disapproved. Comedy 
 which burlesques morgues, funerals, hospitals, insane asylums, 
 the lying-in of women and houses of ill-fame, will be disapproved. 
 
 . (19) Sensual kissing and love-making scenes, men and women 
 / in bed together and indelicate sexual situations, whether in 
 comedies or pictures of other classes will be disapproved. Bath- 
 ing scenes, which pass the limits of propriety, lewd and immodest
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 99 
 
 dancing, the needless exhibition of women in their night-dresses 
 or underclothing, will be disapproved. 
 
 (20) Views of women smoking will not be disapproved as such, 
 but when women are shown in suggestive positions or their 
 manner of smoking is suggestive or degrading, such scenes will 
 be disapproved. 
 
 (21) Pictures or parts of pictures which deal with venereal 
 disease, of any kind, will be disapproved. 
 
 (22) That the theme or story of a picture is adapted from a 
 publication, whether classical or not; or that portions of a picture 
 follow paintings or other illustrations, is not a sufficient reason 
 for the approval of a picture or portions of a picture. 
 
 (23) Themes or incidents in picture stories, which are designed 
 to inflame the mind to improper adventures, or to establish false 
 standards of conduct, coming under the foregoing classes, or of 
 other kinds, will be disapproved. Pictures will be judged as a 
 whole, with a view to their final total effect; those portraying 
 evil in any form which may be easily remembered or emulated, 
 will be disapproved. 
 
 (24) Banners, posters or other advertising matter, concerning 
 motion pictures, must follow the rules laid down for the pictures 
 themselves. That which may not be used upon the screen, 
 must not be used to announce and direct public attention to the 
 picture, in the lobby, on the street, or in any other form. 
 
 Pennsylvania State Board of Censors, Rules and Standards, 
 Harrisburg, Pa., 1918, p. 15 ff. 
 
 APPENDIX E 
 
 SAMPLES OF ELIMINATIONS BY THE NATIONAL BOARD OF 
 REVIEW OF MOTION PICTURES 
 
 Film 1 "In the action where Leslie- is honeymooning in 
 Italy, where she and - are performing their toilet in the morning 
 and - sees the woman in the bath, (1) cut this view of the 
 woman where the maid takes the robe off her and she steps do 
 in the pool, thus eliminating those scenes where she appears nu
 
 100 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 In the scene of the orgy, to which the roue takes , (2) cut 
 
 the close view of the dancer on the table at the point before her 
 draperies are entirely unwound, so as to eliminate that part of 
 the shot where her body appears plainly through the transparency 
 of her skirt. (3) Eliminate the second view of the colored 
 attendant where he sees the silhouette of the dancer on the wall, 
 and makes gestures at it. (4) Cut to flashes the close-ups of the 
 dancer lying on the table where she makes a seductive play 
 
 for , eliminating that close-up of the dancer, photographed 
 
 full on, where she is lying on the table so that her. breasts appear. 
 (5) Cut the last view of the dancer, where she makes a play 
 
 for 's roue friend, at the point before he fondles and kisses 
 
 her. 
 
 Film 2 "Reel 1: (1) In the scene where enters the water, 
 
 cut to the point where she is already waist-deep, thus eliminating 
 that part where she enters and stands in the nude. Reel 6: In 
 
 the scene where dances in 's house : (1) Eliminate the first 
 
 view of the men at the table watching her dance (except a flash 
 to be taken from the end of this scene, and which is to be cut to 
 avoid a jump and to preserve continuity between the scene 
 where the sculptor rises from the table to go to the dancer's 
 assistance and the scene where he carries her out in other 
 words, just preceding the scene indicated by cut No. 5). (2) 
 Cut the scene (long shot) where the ribbons are entirely unwound 
 from the dancer at the point where they are unwinding just 
 above the knees. (3) Cut the close-up of the dancer's legs with 
 the ribbons falling about them so as to use only the middle part 
 which gives the idea of the ribbons falling but does not show at 
 length the girl's bare legs. (4) Eliminate entirely the scene of 
 the men jesting and holding out their glasses as the dancer 
 becomes uncovered. (5) In the scene where the sculptor lifts the 
 dancer in his arms to carry her out, cut the head of the scene so 
 that it begins with the dancer already lifted in his arms and 
 already in the state of being carried well toward the door. (6) 
 Shorten at the tail the scene where the sculptor carries the 
 dancer into the hall, so as to leave the action of her kicking in 
 his arms as short as possible in other words, to where the butler
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 101 
 
 in the background starts off to get a cloak. (Split the long 
 shot of the guests crowding about the doorway of the dining 
 rooms, so as to use part of it to cut in to avoid a jump and give 
 continuity.) (7) In the scene in the hall where the butler brings 
 the cloak, cut it up to the point where the butler is about to put 
 the cloak over her. (8) Eliminate entirely the scene (long shot) 
 in the hall where the dancer is seen standing, and comes toward 
 the sculptor. (9) Cut the following close-up to the point after 
 she kisses him where she stands looking at him in a troubled 
 way, thus eliminating the action where she kisses him in abandon. 
 
 (10) Where the butler brings her into the boudoir cut at the 
 
 point where he places her on the couch. (This scene, as cut, 
 is to be cut back into the scene where the sculptor is sitting in 
 the park outside.) (11) In the action where the butler is leaving 
 the boudoir, cut the close-up of the dancer on the couch where 
 she beckons him to come to her. 
 
 Film 3 "(1) In Reel 1: Cut the first scene of the girl in the 
 bathtub at the point where she gets into the tub with the maid 
 holding a cloak in front of her. (2) Eliminate the enlarged 
 view of the girl in the bathtub where she is soaping herself. 
 (3) Cut the view of the man looking through the key-hole to one 
 flash. (4) Eliminate the subtitle, 'Hot Dogs'. (5) Eliminate 
 the subtitle to the effect that a cake of soap does not have such 
 a hard life after all. (6) Later in the picture where is pre- 
 paring for her wedding, eliminate the subtitle, ' bares her 
 
 ^trousseau and other things.' (7) Eliminate the scene imme- 
 diately following this subtitle against the black drop where 
 
 is posing in negligee, opening this sequence with the scene where 
 she has her maids around her. (8) Eliminate the close view of 
 
 in her negligee where the camera is tilted from her feet to her 
 
 head. (9) In the last reel eliminate the subtitle, ' brings 
 
 her little Boalt to his little Knutt in time to couple them.' 
 
 Film 4 "In part 2 of episode 11: Eliminate close-ups of 
 
 the torturing of the so that there will not be more than two 
 
 close-ups of girl's face, two of detective's face and one showing 
 forcing back of girl's thumb." 
 
 From mimeographed material issued by the National Board of Review.
 
 102 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 APPENDIX F 
 
 MUTUAL FILM CORPORATION vs. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION 
 
 OF OHIO, 236 U. S. SUPREME COURT RECORDS, 
 
 PP. 239-247 
 
 "Complainant directs its argument to three propositions: 
 
 (1) The statute in controversy imposes an unlawful burden 
 on interstate commerce ; (2) it violates the freedom of speech and 
 publication guaranteed by Section 11, art. 1, of the constitution 
 of the State of Ohio; and (3) it attempts to delegate legislative 
 power to censors and to other boards to determine whether the 
 statute offends in the particulars designated. 
 
 "It is necessary to consider only Sections 3, 4 and 5" (of the 
 Ohio Censorship Act). 
 
 "Section 3 makes it the duty of the board to examine and 
 cen. or motion picture films to be pub icly exhibited and displayed 
 in the State of Ohio. The films are required to be exhibited to 
 the board before they are delivered to the exhibitor for exhibition, 
 for which a fee is charged. 
 
 "Section 4. "Only such films as are in the judgment and 
 discretion of the board of censors of a moral, educational or 
 amusing and harmless character shall be passed and approved 
 by such board." The films are required to be stamped or 
 designated in a proper manner. 
 
 "Section 5. The board may work in conjunction with censor 
 boards of other States as a censor congress, and the action of 
 such congress in approving or rejecting films shall be considered 
 as the action of the state board, and all the films passed, ap- 
 proved, stamped and numbered by such congress, when the fees 
 therefor are paid shall be considered approved by the board. 
 
 "By Section 7 a penalty is imposed for such exhibition of films 
 without the approval of the board, and by Section 8 any person 
 dissatisfied with the order of the board is given the same rights 
 and remedies for hearing and reviewing, amendment or vacation 
 of the order" as is provided : n the case of persons dissatisfied 
 with the orders of the industrial commission.
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 103 
 
 "The censorship, therefore, is only of films intended for 
 exhibition in Ohio, and we can immediately put to one side the 
 contention that it imposes a burden on interstate commerce. 
 It is true that according to the allegations of the bill some of the 
 films of complainant are shipped from Detroit, Michigan, but 
 they are distributed to exhibitors, renters and lessors in Ohio, 
 for exhibition in Ohio, and this determines the application of the 
 statute. In other words, it is only films which are 'to be 
 publicly exhibited and displayed in the State of Ohio' which are 
 required to be examined and censored. It would be straining the 
 doctrine of original packages to say the films retain that form 
 and composition even when unrolling and exhibiting to audiences, 
 or being ready for renting for the purpose of exhibition within 
 the State, could not be disclosed to the state officers. If this 
 be so, whatever the power of the State to prevent the exhibition 
 of films not approved and for the purpose of this contention 
 we must assume the power is otherwise plenary films brought 
 from another state, and only because so brought, would be 
 exempt from the power, and films made in the State would be 
 subject to it. There must be some time when the films are 
 subject to the law of the State, and necessarily when they are 
 in the hands of the exchanges ready to be rented to exhibitors 
 or have passed to the latter, they are in consumption, and 
 mingled as much as from their nature they can be with other 
 property of the State. 
 
 "It is true that the statute requires them to be submitted to 
 the Board before they are delivered to the exhibitor, but we 
 have seen that the films are shipped to 'exchanges' and by them 
 rented to exhibitors, and the 'exchanges' are described as ' nothing 
 more or less than circulating libraries or clearing houses.' And 
 one film 'serves in many theatres from day to day until it is 
 worn out.' 
 
 "The next contention is that the statute violates the freedom 
 of speech and publication guaranteed by the Ohio constitution. 
 In its discussion counsel have gone into a very elaborate descrip- 
 tion of moving picture exhibitions and their many useful purposes 
 as graphic expressions of opinions and sentiments, as exponents
 
 104 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 of policies, as teachers of science and history, as useful, interesting, 
 amusing, educational and moral. And a list of the 'campaigns', 
 as counsel call them, which may be carried on is given. We 
 may concede the praise. It is not questioned by the Ohio 
 statute and under its comprehensive description 'campaigns' 
 of an infinite variety may be conducted. Films of a 'moral, 
 educational or amusing and harmless character shall be passed 
 and approved' are the words of the statute. No exhibition, 
 therefore, or 'campaign' of complainant will be prevented if 
 its pictures have those qualities. Therefore, however mis- 
 sionary of opinion films are or may become, however educational 
 or entertaining, there is no impediment to their value or effect 
 in the Ohio statute. But they may be used for evil, and against 
 that possibility the statute was enacted. Their power of 
 amusement, and, it may be, education, the audiences they assem- 
 ble, not of women alone nor of men alone, but together, not of 
 adults only, but of children, make them the more insidious in 
 corruption by a pretense of worthy purpose or if they should 
 degenerate from worthy purpose. Indeed, we may go beyond 
 that possibility. They take their attraction from the general 
 interest, eager and wholesome, it may be in their subjects, but 
 a prurient interest may be excited and appealed to. Besides, 
 there are some things which should not have pictorial representa- 
 tion in public places and to all audiences. And not only the 
 State of Ohio but other States have considered it to be in the 
 interest of the public morals and welfare to supervise moving 
 picture exhibitions. We would have to shut our eyes to the 
 facts of the world to regard the precaution unreasonable or the 
 legislation to effect it a mere wanton interference with personal 
 liberty. 
 
 "We do not understand that a possibility of an evil employ- 
 ment of films is denied, but a freedom from the censorship of the 
 law and a precedent right of exhibition are asserted, subsequent 
 responsibility only, it is contended, being incurred for abuse. 
 In other words, as we have seen, the constitution of Ohio is 
 invoked and an exhibition of films is assimilated to the freedom 
 of speech, writing and publication assured by that instrument
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 105 
 
 and for the abuse of which only is there responsibility, and, it is 
 insisted, that as no law may be passed 'to restrain the liberty 
 of speech or of the press,' no law may be passed to subject 
 moving pictures to censorship before their exhibition. 
 
 " We need not pause to dilate upon the freedom of opinion and 
 its expression, and whether by speech, writing or printing. They 
 are too certain to need discussion of such conceded value as 
 to need no supporting praise. Nor can there be any doubt of 
 their breadth nor that their underlying safeguard is, to use the 
 words of another, ' that opinion is free and that conduct alone is 
 amenable to the law.' 
 
 "Are moving pictures within the principle, as it is contended 
 they are? They, indeed, may be mediums of thought, but so 
 are many things. So is the theatre, the circus, and all other 
 shows and spectacles, and their performances may be thus 
 brought by the like reasoning under the same immunity from 
 repression or supervision as the public press, made the same 
 agencies of civil liberty. 
 
 "Counsel have not shrunk from this extension of their conten- 
 tion and cite a case in this court where the title of drama was 
 accorded to pantomime ; l and such and other spectacles are 
 said by counsel to be publications of ideas, satisfying the defini- 
 tion of the dictionaries, that is, and we quote counsel, a means 
 of making or announcing publicly something that otherwise 
 might have remained private or unknown, and this being 
 peculiarly the purpose and effect of moving pictures they come 
 directly, it is contended, under the protection of the Ohio 
 constitution. 
 
 "The first impulse of the mind is to reject the contention. 
 We immediately feel that the argument is wrong or strained 
 which extends the guaranties of free opinion and speech to the 
 multitudinous shows which are advertised on the billboards of 
 our cities and towns and which regards them as emblems of 
 public safety, to use the words of Lord Camden, quoted by 
 counsel, and which seeks to bring motion pictures and other 
 spectacles into practical and legal similitude to a free press and 
 liberty of opinion. 
 
 1 Kalem vs. Harper Bros., 222 U. S. 55.
 
 106 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 "The judicial sense supporting the common sense of the 
 country is against the contention. As pointed out by the 
 District Court, the police power is familiarly exercised in granting 
 or withholding licenses for theatrical performances as a means 
 of their regulation. The court cited the following cases: Marmet 
 v. State, 45 Ohio, 63, 72, 73; Baker v. Cincinnati, 11 Ohio St. 534; 
 Commonwealth v. McGann, 213 Massachusetts, 213, 215; People 
 v. Steele, 231 Illinois, 340, 344, 345. 
 
 "The exercise of the power upon moving picture exhibitions 
 has been sustained. Greenburg v. Western TurfAss'n, 148 Califor- 
 nia, 126; Laurelle v. Bush, 17 Cal. App. 409; State v. Loden, 117 
 Maryland, 373; Block v. Chicago, 239 Illinois, 251; Higgins v. 
 Lacroix, 119 Minnesota, 145. See also State v. Morris, 76 All. 
 Rep. 479; People v. Gaynor, 137 N. Y. S. 196, 199; McKenzie v. 
 McClellan, 116 N. Y. S. 645, 646. 
 
 "It seems not to have occurred to anybody in the cited cases 
 that freedom of opinion was repressed in the exertion of the 
 power which was illustrated. The rights of property were only 
 considered as involved. It cannot be put out of view that the 
 exhibition of moving pictures is a business pure and simple, 
 originated and conducted for profit, like other spectacles, not 
 to be regarded, nor intended to be regarded by the Ohio con- 
 stitution, we think, as part of the press of the country or as 
 organs of public opinion. They are mere representations of 
 events, of ideas and sentiments published and known, vivid, 
 useful and entertaining no doubt, but, as we have said, capable 
 of evil, having power for it, the greater because of their attrac- 
 tiveness and manner of exhibition. It was this capability and 
 power, and it may be in experience of them, that induced the 
 State of Ohio, in addition to prescribing penalties for immoral 
 exhibitions, as it does in its Criminal Code, to require censorship 
 before exhibition, as it does by the act under review. We 
 cannot regard this as beyond the power of government. 
 
 "It does not militate against the strength of these considera- 
 tions that motion pictures may be used to amuse and instruct 
 in other places than theatres in churches, for instance, and in 
 Sunday schools and public schools. Nor are we called upon to
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 107 
 
 say on this record whether such exceptions would be within the 
 provisions of the statute nor to anticipate that it will be so 
 declared by the state courts or so enforced by the state officers. 
 
 "The next contention of complainant is that the Ohio statute 
 is a delegation of legislative power and void for that if not for 
 the other reasons charged against it, which we have discussed. 
 While administration and legislation are quite distinct powers, 
 the line which separates exactly their exercise is not easy to define 
 in words. It is best recognized in illustrations. Undoubtedly 
 the legislature must declare the policy of the law and fix the legal 
 principles which are to control in given cases; but an adminis- 
 trative body may be invested with the power to ascertain the 
 facts and conditions to which the policy and principles apply. 
 If this could not be done there would be infinite confusion in the 
 laws, and in an effort to detail and to particularize, they would 
 miss sufficiency both in provision and execution. 
 
 "The objection to the statute is that it furnishes no standard 
 of what is educational, moral, amusing or harmless, and hence 
 leaves decision to arbitrary judgment, whim and caprice; or, 
 aside from those extremes, leaving it to the different views which 
 might be entertained of the effect of the pictures, permitting the 
 'personal equation' to enter, resulting 'in unjust discrimination 
 against some propagandist film,' while others might be approved 
 without question. But the statute by its provisions guards 
 against such variant judgments, and its terms, like other general 
 terms, get precision from the sense and experience of men and 
 become certain and useful guides in reasoning and conduct. 
 The exact specification of the instances of their application 
 would be as impossible as the attempt would be futile. Upon 
 such sense and experience, therefore, the law properly relies. 
 This has many analogies and direct examples in cases, and we 
 may cite Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U. S. 183; Red '' Oil Manu- 
 facturing Co. v. North Carolina, 222 U. S. 380; Bridge Co. v. 
 United States, 216 U. S. 177 ; Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 U. S. 470. 
 See also Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 86. If this 
 were not so, the many administrative agencies created by the 
 state and National governments would be denuded of their
 
 108 MOTION PICTURES 
 
 utility and government in some of its most important exercises 
 become impossible. 
 
 "To sustain the attack upon the statute as a delegation of 
 legislative power, complainant cites Harmon v. State, 66 Ohio St. 
 249. In that case a statute of the State committing to a certain 
 officer the duty of issuing a license to one desiring to act as an 
 engineer if 'found trustworthy and competent,' was declared 
 invalid because, as the court said, no standard was furnished by 
 the General Assembly as to qualification, and no specification 
 as to wherein the applicant should be trustworthy and compe- 
 tent, but all was 'left to the opinion, finding and caprice of the 
 examiner.' The case can be distinguished. Besides, later 
 cases have recognized the difficulty of exact separation of the 
 powers of government, and announced the principle that 
 legislative power is completely exercised where the law 'is 
 perfect, final, and decisive in all of its parts, and the discretion 
 given only relates to its execution.' Cases are cited in illus- 
 tration. And the principle finds further illustration in the 
 decisions of the courts of lesser authority but which exhibit the 
 judicial sense of the State as to the delegation of powers. 
 
 "Section 5 of the statute, which provides for a censor congress 
 of the censor board and the boards of other States, is referred 
 to in emphasis of complainant's objection that the statute 
 delegates legislative power. But, as complainant says, such con- 
 gress is 'at present non-existent and nebulous,' and we are, 
 therefore, not called upon to anticipate its action or pass upon 
 the validity of Section 5. 
 
 "We may close this topic with a quotation of the very apt 
 comment of the District Court upon the statute. After re- 
 marking that the language of the statute 'might have been 
 extended by descriptive and illustrative words,' but doubting 
 that it would have been the more intelligible and that probably 
 by being more restrictive might be more easily thwarted, the 
 court said : ' In view of the range of subjects which complainants 
 claim to have already compassed, not to speak of the natural 
 development that will ensue, it would be next to impossible to
 
 A STUDY IN SOCIAL LEGISLATION 109 
 
 devise language that would be at once comprehensive and 
 automatic. ' 
 
 "In conclusion we may observe that the Ohio statute gives a 
 review by the courts of the State of the decision of the board of 
 censors. "
 
 ''' 
 
 , 
 
 '
 
 i KJUTMEHNHEGIONAl. UBHABY FAOUTY 
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which it was borrowed.
 
 t 
 
 Unive 
 So