500 exhibitions. The tax, therefore, is 2 cents for each exhibition of a reel. The claim that the tax is confiscatory is absurd.

The law permits the tax commissioner to revoke a registration if he finds the film " to be immoral or of a character to offend the racial or religious sensibilities of any element of society." It permits educational, religious, industrial, and news reels to be given a permit to be exhibited without paying the tax. The law provides that any such permit may be canceled within the discretion of the commissioner.

Mr. Wickersham claimed that the censorship provisions of this act go beyond anything as yet upheld by the courts, vest arbitrary and uncontrolled power in the tax commissioner, and are void under the fourteenth amendment of the United States.

The court says:

This does not clothe the commissioner with arbitrary power. One is clothed with arbitrary power only when the law invests h m with power to act according to his own will or pleasure, capriciously, and without adequate determining principle. The act involved herein does not permit such action, but adequately indicates the determining principle by which his action is to be controlled. The use of the words "within the discretion of the commissioner" do not impart absolute and capricious discretion. It is an administrative discretion, and it requires him to satisfy himself that such a state of facts exists that under the statute a reel is of "strictly scientific character' or is for the promotion of educational, charitable, religious, and patriotic purposes, and for the instruction of employees by employers of labor."

66

In deciding that question he necessarily exercises discretion and judgment. It can be decided in no other way. And in doing so he does not have unlimited license to act irrespective of restraint. He must act in conformity with the intent and provisions of the statute. (Fox Film Corporation v. Trumbull, 7 Fed. Rep. (2d Series) 715.)

Upon learning of the court's adverse decision, Mr. Hays announced that for the present his organizations would rent no more films for Connecticut, though the contracts already made with theaters in that State will be kept. The United States statutes forbid any boycott. Mr. Hays inaugurated a plain bid for newspaper support through advertising patronage. He asked Governor Trumbull to call a special session of the legislature to repeal the act. He organized a campaign to induce legislators who had voted for the act to vote for its repeal. But defeats met him on every side. The trust's lawyers petitioned the court to permit a rearguing of the case. The court denied the request on October 12, saying that "whether the act as passed is exercise of police power or the taxing power, it is valid."

Later an appeal was taken to the United States Supreme Court, where again the decision was against the trust.

When the public and the legislators at last comprehended how the movie trust had attempted to deceive and brow-beat the public to escape the payment of their just share of the taxes, public sentiment reacted violently against the trust.

Finally the people sensed that there was something strange behind this attempt to kill the Connecticut movie law other than first appeared. A trade journal exposed the secret when it said:

It is not the tax in Connecticut that matters, but remember that Connecticut was the first State to put a tax on gasoline and now nearly every State in the Union has followed that example.

No State has enacted State censorship laws since Hays was engaged to exercise his political talents to manipulate State legislatures to prevent them. But Hays saw that unless he could kill the Connecticut law his reign was doomed. Hays's attempt to induce legislators who had voted for the law to reverse themselves fizzled when the real motive of the trust was exposed.

Hays's defeat was finally passed off as a "compromise." It was announced on November 7 that the warfare against the law was ended, that the exchanges would be returned to New Haven, that the appeal to the United States Supreme Court had been withdrawn, and the rental of films to Connecticut theaters would be resumed because Governor Trumbull had declared that he would recommend to the next legislature that the movie tax law be amended so as to eliminate the censorship feature.

Governor Trumbull, however, has not surrendered. He is quoted in the New York Times as saying that he did not believe any substitute bill would be proposed and that he would not make any specific recommendations. His chief interest, he said, was to help out the theater owners, as he recognized that there were weak points in the law. The next legislature will not meet till 1927. The taxes will be paid as the law requires. Connecticut will receive about $200,000 annually from the movies.

Mr. PETTIJOHN. Are you quoting from Governor Trumbull's statement when you say that?

Canon CHASE. No. The quotation ends with "His chief interest was to help out the theater owners, as he recognized that there were weak points in the law." That is the end of his statement.

The chief cause for rejoicing, however, is that the new law makes it possible for any citizen in Connecticut, if an immoral or indecent film is shown anywhere in Connecticut, to take such action as will immediately banish it from the State.

Mr. FLETCHER. Any individual?

Canon CHASE. Any individual can make a complaint to the tax commissioner, and the tax commissioner will then view the film; and if in his judgment the film is not within the standards mentioned in the law, he can by his ipse dixit remove it. There is no censorship in the law.

Mr. DOUGLASS. That is censorship, no matter when it begins. It is censorship.

Canon CHASE. We must define our terms always. Many fights are conducted because we do not understand our terms. What was your point?

Mr. FLETCHER. You were going to explain what happened when an individual complains to the tax commissioner-the process by which his will is carried out.

Mr. LOWREY. Whether or not that is censorship.

Canon CHASE. There is only one real censorship in the world to-day, as far as I know, and that is in England, the censorship of the state, whereby the law, which is 300 years old and perhaps 500, appoints one man who is the censor, and he inspects all pictures that are presented for pay in public theaters. A play must be presented for your friends for which there is no admission fee or for which there is no charge made; but if there is any money to be

made out of it through public theaters, he censors it. It can not be shown in that capacity without his approval.

Mr. DOUGLASS. He is a censor in your estimation? Canon CHASE. He is a censor. No one can reverse him. Parliament itself can't reverse him. He is a censor. He is a censor employed for previewing films with an arbitrary power which never can be reversed.

Now, under all the State laws which are called censorship laws, all the censor does is to preview the films and to declare that they are proper before they are shown. Censorship is an arbitrary acting in accordance with the will or whim of the censor. If he proceeds to act in accordance with the law, to administer the law, to carry out the law, he does only what any judge does or any administrative office.

Mr. DOUGLASS. Does this law contemplate censorship in the sense that the commissioners shall have the power to keep out of production any film which does not meet with these standards of morality as set down in this law?

Canon CHASE. Yes.

Mr. DOUGLASS. Isn't that censorship within the law?

Canon CHASE. Well, as I say, it depends on what your definition of censorship is.

Mr. DOUGLASS. You object to the word, it seems to me. You do not like to use this word "censorship." The word seems to be offen

sive to you.

Canon CHASE. Yes, I think it is an offensive term; but I don't object to it so much if we understand what we mean by it.

Mr. DOUGLASS. It is a legal censorship, as contemplated by this bill. Canon CHASE. What do you mean by the word "censorship"?

Mr. DOUGLASS. I mean by "censorship" the right of these commissioners within the limits imposed by this law as defining morals, the right of the commissioners to preclude from production such films as they say comes within the purview of this law, which contemplates that they shall have the right to say what is the law within the meaning of the term "morality," as defined therein.

Canon CHASE. If you call that censorship, all right.

Mr. DOUGLASS. I call that censorship. What would you call it? Canon CHASE. I call it simply

Mr. DOUGLASS. Regulation?

Canon CHASE. For an administrative officer

Mr. DOUGLASs. There is really a very small difference, Canon, between the terms," censorship" and "legal regulation," isn't there? Mr. UPSHAW. Our concept is this: That censorship properly belongs to pictures already made.

Mr. DOUGLASS. I do not care where censorship begins, whether by; preview or whether upon complaint of a district attorney. When the question of whether a picture is moral or not arises, it comes before the commissioners, whether by preview or by complaint after production through a district attorney. They exercise the powers under this law to either license or refuse to license the picture. Whether that commissioner is acting as censor or regulator or what. not, he is acting with the power given under this act. Isn't that so?

Mr. UPSHAW. May I remark that it comes back again to our concept of the meaning of censorship. Times arise in some countries when it is announced that all statements are censored.

Mr. DOUGLASS. That is no real censorship where it is purely an arbitrary matter that affects the public peace in the public emergency. This bill does not contemplate that kind of censorship. This is a censorship of a certain kind limited by the terms of this act, isn't it?

Mr. UPSHAW. If you call it that.

Mrs. KAHN. It is a colloquial application of the word "censorship."

Mr. UPSHAW. We come back to the meaning of the word again. We are preventing them from producing anything that is not within these standards; we are not censoring a thing that is already produced.

Mr. DOUGLASS. You are censoring a thing if you say that it does not come up to that standard set by law.

Mr. UPSHAW. Not if you say so before it occurs. We are saying so beforehand in order to encourage them to produce a thing that will be within the standards of this definition.

Mr. DOUGLASS. You set the standard of definition in this bill to be determined by these commissioners, who are to be given authority to say, "This picture is sacrilegious" or "This picture is indecent." The commissioners have the authority under this law to say whether that picture is indecent, obscene, immoral, or what; and when this commissioner does that under the terms of the statute he is censoring that picture.

Mr. UPSHAW. Before it is made?

Mr. DOUGLASS. Before it is made or after it is made and produced, while it is subject to the complaint of the district. attorney, as provided by the terms of this act. When he exercises the authority given him by this act, before or after he censors it.

Mr. FENN. May I suggest that I think this whole matter is only a matter of tweedledum and tweedledee. It is only a question of whether you want to accept the word "censorship or the word "regulation."

Mr. UPSHAW. May I suggest here that our whole motive in this thing is this: We have a friendly interest in the motion-picture business and we want to save the producer from the trouble of producing pictures that are not what they ought to be.

The CHAIRMAN. I am very much interested in this and I want to give everybody full leeway for questions; but it is 2 minutes to I and I would like to get some idea of how much longer you will require.

Canon CHASE. I think if we could have a couple of hours after lunch. I don't know what will develop, but we ought to finish then. The CHAIRMAN. Is it the sense of this committee that we continue this after we start at 2 o'clock so that they can complete their side of the case? The only thing is that two hours takes up until 4 o'clock and work is piling up in my office and I suppose it is in your offices.

Mr. PETTIJOHN. May I say one thing? If Mr. Chase will finish this afternoon, I will let a lot of our people go and submit their

statements in writing so as to simplify the matter and finish up our side in one hour.

Mr. FENN. I may not be able to come here to-morrow.

Mr. PETTIJOHN. If you will give us an hour this afternoon.

Mrs. KAHN. You are certainly entitled to all the time you want. Each side ought to be given all the time that is reasonably necessary to present its side of the case. I don't think that we want to cut off anybody's presentation of his case. I don't know why one side should present its case fully and should be given all the time it absolutely wants and then the other side should not be given as much time as that side wants.

The CHAIRMAN. That is certainly what I want to do. I want to get the sense of the committee and make it convenient to the committee. Mr. DOUGLASS. I will have to get away before to-morrow. I move that we sit this afternoon.

The CHAIRMAN. We are not going to hold hearings next week. If we can not finish before Monday, we will have to hold meetings the week after next.

Mr. PETTIJOHN. The chairman has been kind to us, and I am wondering if this committee in discussing this bill cares to hear from some one directly connected with the industry, who is some kind of authority on the subject.

Mrs. KAHN. I think so.

Mr. PETTIJOHN. I was wondering whether you would like to hear from people who are interested in this thing and find out whether they are people who want to be saved from their friends or whether they don't. If you don't, I would like to respectfully suggest that next week I have to be in Canada and the following week on the west coast. We have very constructive work to do in some lines. If we could have to-morrow morning one hour, we could then submit most of the others in writing and the resolutions that have been passed by various organizations. A lot of those folks have already gone home.

The CHAIRMAN. We don't want to preclude you or confine you to an hour. You may have all the time that you wish.

Mrs. KAHN. Let us meet to-morrow morning.

The CHAIRMAN. I am perfectly willing to go ahead to-morrow morning.

Mrs. KAHN. May I make the suggestion that we meet here at 9.30 to-morrow?

The CHAIRMAN. That would be satisfactory.

Mrs. KAHN. That would give us plenty of time. We can go on this afternoon at 2 and then to-morrow at 9.30.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that satisfactory to this committee?

We will adjourn now and meet this afternoon at 2 o'clock. (Thereupon the committee adjourned at 12.40 p. m. until 2 o'clock p. m.).

AFTER RECESS

The committee reassembled at the conclusion of the recess, at 2 o'clock p. m.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. I am going to introduce a new witness at this point, Mrs. Gibbs, who desires about 10 minutes to present a statement to the committee.