say, "Wait, Georgie, take off the amor and law it all down; you might ride the prancing horse and get in a conflict, and I will take the broom and sweep all of the toads out of the path," and when you get through pampering Georgie you think he will be perfectly safe for the path of life. You are not preparing the child for the path; you are devoting all of your energy in preparing the path for the child. That does not make character.

In conclusion, and I know I have left many things unsaid, if there is anything in the minds of any member of the committee I will be glad to try to answer it the best I can; but let me say this: With all the machinery you suggest to be set up, with all of your "expert educated conscience," the people in this country know Will Hays is a pretty decent citizen. Instead of harassing him and making his path harder-and you are making his path harder when you send out letters and everybody sends them out, and then you collect in the answers to see if you can find some little thing to see whether he contradicts himself-instead of harassing him you ought to get down on your knees at night, if you are honest in your convictions and want decent, clean pictures, and thank God that Will Hays is in this business. I am laying aside politics when I make that remark. If Will Hays would vote the Democratic ticket he would be perfect. [Laughter.] I believe the people in this country trust Will Hays on his record as it stands to date and as it has been laid before this committee, and want him to continue. God knows that is the way these people feel in the business. This is a direct appearance for them. We would rather trust Will Hays any day, with the record he has made, than the high fantastic recommendations of Canon Chase, even though the canon himself had Hays's job, which the lady says pays $300,000 a year. I wish she would fix my salary with the same liberality.

I suggest that the present plan and existing machinery will bring better results (and the record to date shows it has done so) than the combined brains of Chase, Scanlin, Twombley & Co., and surely this is the honest belief of the industry itself and, incidentally, of President Coolidge.

And, in closing, I want to read to you the opinion of the President of the United States. Let me read to you from a letter of the President of the United States to Mr. Hays on the 13th of last July from Swampscott. This is headed:

SWAMPSCOTT, MASS., July 13, 1925.

DEAR MR. HAYS: My attention has been called to the fact that you are taking the twenty-ninth anniversary of the moving-picture industry as an occasion to inaugurate a Greater Movie Season Campaign. Such a movement to emphasize the desirability of worthy motion pictures will be of real public value. The progress that has been made in both education and entertainment in this tremendous enterprise is an outstanding achievement of the opening years of this century. I congratulate you and wish you a continuation of your success. Very truly yours,

He goes to the movies.

CALVIN COOLIDGE.

Mr. DOUGLASS. Mr. Pettijohn, either you, Mr. Connolly, or Mr. McGrady made the remark that the same forces that were behind this censorship bill of the movies are also behind the censorship of the press. Have you any proof on that, or any of your colleagues?

Mr. CONNOLLY. The Rev. John K. Gault, pastor of the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Cambridge, was one of the leading exponents of the proposed censorship law in Massachusetts and worked with Canon Chase and other members of a committee to pass this measure. I am going to quote you from the Cambridge Tribune of September 9, 1922, which speaks for itself and which proves our statement:

Rev. John K. Gault, pastor of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, Cambridge, Mass., September 30, 1922, says:

66

But really have we the right to establish censorship over motion pictures and not over anything else that affects the morals of society. I do not believe that we have. What shall we say about the articles that are printed in our newspapers which are unfit to be read? What about all of these putrid divorce cases and immoral living that are so flamboyantly written up? They ought to be censored. What about all of these so-called 'works of art' that we see in institutes and museums? Many mothers of our country would hold up their hands in horror if their children should see pictures of nude men and women thrown on the motion-picture screen; but those same mothers would not hesitate to allow their children to go through art institutes and other places where statues of nude figures are standing around on all sides.

“Yet, let us have a board of censorship so as to make the motion-picture industry what it ought to be; to make our newspapers what they ought to be; and to make our libraries, art institutes, and museums what they ought to be. When we begin a good work, to be consistent we must carry it through. Let us censor every enterprise that is designed to serve the public."

Mr. PETTIJOHN. Let me say this and then I am through: When the Constitutions of the 48 States and of the Federal Government were written they guaranteed the freedom of every then known form of human expression. Since those constitutions were written in all of the States and for the Federal Government, there has come into existence two new forms of transmission of thought, namely, the motion picture and the radio. I say to this committee it was the intention of our forefathers at that time to put into the Constitution every known form of human expression, and if we had had the movie and radio in that day, they would have gotten the same freedom as the press or free speech.

Mr. UPSHAW. May I just say this one word: All that Mr. Pettijohn has said about that splendid achievement of motion pictures, I said in brief in the beginning. I have indorsed all that is splendid. As to the lecture about taking care of the children, I want to say that I have spoken to more than 4,000,000 students in America, trying to inspire them. My only objection is that while they are receiving so much that is splendid in education, that here and there they shall be poisoned. I only contend that the glory and grandeur of this motion picture shall be preserved and the unclean in it shall be eliminated. By that I stand.

Mr. DOUGLASS. I want to put into the record that I think the committee ought to be thankful to Mr. Pettijohn for his very able argument in defense of the morals of the people in the movingpicture industry.

(At this point Mr. Fenn took the chair.)

STATEMENT OF WILTON A. BARRETT, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY NATIONAL BOARD OF REVIEW, NEW YORK CITY

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, the proponents of censorship seem to allude to the opponents always as the people of the motion-picture industry. Now I am not personally

in the motion-picture industry; never have been and probably never will be. I have many friends in the motion-picture industry. Some of them are here and I am very proud to acknowledge that friendship before this committee.

I

I began this work on the problem of the motion picture as an employee of a citizens' organization that started out to censor. took that job with Canon Chase because I needed the money and I imagine most censors take the job for the same reason. And because allusions have been made to the national board, which were both disparaging of the board and of the motion-picture industry, I do not mind saying I was getting $20 a week at that time; the executive secretary was getting $35 and the assistant $25, and that was the sum total of the budget for the work of the national board. We have more money now.

It has been said here that a judge, in order to render a decision, must have all the evidence. That is right. Any paid censor or any voluntary censor, to render a just decision on any given motion picture, must have all of the evidence and, to get all of the evidence on any motion picture, you must know how the picture affects the mind of every single person who has seen that picture. And to do that you would have to psychoanalyze, to get all the evidence, every single individual in an audience, to determine precisely what their reactions were to what they had seen on the screen. That would be all the evidence.

Now, Mr. Pettijohn was perfectly right when he was talking about trying to prepare the path for the child, rather than to prepare the child for the path. The motion picture, like every other great medium of expression, like every great popular entertainment, either in the drama or in literature, is a reflection of the age in which it is created or produced, and the age is not a reflection of any medium of expression. Your popular medium of expression has to supply substance that will meet the interest of its audience, or it can not survive; it can not live. And that is true of the motion picture more than of any other medium of expression, because its costs are so much more to produce and you have got to make so much more out of it, and you have got to know what the people think and what the people are interested in, and what the people of this country or any other country are interested in, in the motion picture is seeing themselves, seeing their life, because it is ourselves that we are most interested in.

Now, I have listened very carefully to what has been said at this hearing by the proponents of censorship, and I have no bitter feelings toward them, because I think I understand. All of their evidence which they have adduced has a singular lack of substance in facts. There are other speakers here, and I want to deal briefly and I want to confine myself as much as possible to the facts; because I think, in 14 or 15 years of constant study of this problem, I know what the facts are, and I am sure I have worked with an organization which has been in the long run a research laboratory to discover the facts, in order to work in a constructive, proper, and fair way. Here is one fact, and a very, very important fact, more important than any that has been given here, in regard to the motion picture as a stimulator of crime in children

2

Mrs. KAHN. May I interrupt to ask with what organization you are connected?

Mr. BARRETT. The National Board of Review of Motion Pictures. About four years ago the national board was anxious to determine the facts in regard to the motion picture and the child. We sent out a questionnaire to all of the leading probation officers of this country, asking them what, in their opinion, people who had given their time and their interest to this very question of juvenile delinquencywhat, in their opinion, the effect of the motion picture had been in stimulating juvenile crime. Only two of those people answered that questionnaire, saying that the motion picture definitely had anything to do with crime. The great majority of the people who answered the questionnaire said that crime in the child was a matter of heredity and environment.

Mr. FLETCHER. Did they base their opinion on a survey made under test conditions?

Mr. BARRETT. Yes; I think so.

Mr. FLETCHER. What were those conditions?

Mr. BARRETT. I would be very glad to supply the committee with a report of that investigation.

Mr. FLETCHER. I am trying to get this for the committee's benefit. You are giving now just what we want.

Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. FLETCHER. And I would like to know whether that opinion was based on scientific observation or merely on casual observation. Mr. BARRETT. That opinion was arrived at from the consideration of the problem by people who are professionally interested in studying juvenile delinquency-the probation officers themselves.

Mrs. KAHN. You do not know whether there was any psychoanalytical test, for instance, a test to determine intelligence, whether any real scientific tests were given to determine the reaction of the child toward the picture, whether it was given any scientific study, or simply was the result of their observations.

Mr. BARRETT. It was their opinion, based on their observation.
Mrs. KAHN. Not a result of a test conducted scientifically?

Mr. BARRETT. One or two of them made a scientific test. I would be very glad to supply this committee with the results of that investigation. This fact was brought out, however, that it has been rumored that the motion picture was essentially evil, by the proponents of censorship; that the child, when it commits an act of crime, in searching around quickly for an excuse and justification for that crime, will attach it to the first thing that comes into its mind, about which it has been said it was evil. So, if little Johnny stole his grandmother's bedroom slippers and mother said "Why did you do it," he says "Because I saw it in the motion picture," because the parents have said, people have said, without a knowledge of the facts, "Do not go to that picture; do not go to this picture." "Why?" "Because that motion picture is something bad."

Mr. FLETCHER. You are using as an argument here that the suggestion on the part of the parents puts an image in the child's mind to cause his answer?

Mr. BARRETT. Yes.

Mr. FLETCHER. Why would not the same law of psychology apply as to the influence of the picture on the child's mind?

Mr. BARRETT. He has been told that the thing is bad. I think we have all had the experience of being told a book is bad.

Mr. FLETCHER. Îf he sees it is bad, has not that a far more subconscious effect than if he is told it is bad?

Mr. BARRETT. No; because you must remember the motion picture presents a constantly changing image before the eye, each image passing rapidly one after another, and the imagination is not allowed to fix itself on any given picture. Now, it is a matter of psychology whether on children the visual image is more stimulating than the printed word; because the mind can dwell on the printed word

Mrs. KAHN. I think we all acknowledge that children are imitative. They do imitate things they see in the movies; they do imitate things they see in the papers; they do imitate things they read in the books. But, of course, the thing to get at is whether the impression is left-whether it has an effect on their character; whether it makes a deep enough impression to inspire them to do good or ill. That is really the question, because everybody who has ever had anything to do with children knows that children are imitators. Now, the question is whether the moving picture is of sufficient strength or force to influence the child for ill, or whether it is not. Personally I think every child goes through those certain stages without having seen moving pictures.

Mr. BARRETT. Going back to some of the remarks that have been made here about the National Board of Review, I believe this committee would be interested in the facts regarding that organization. First, Mr. Chairman, I should like to place in the record a statement of the National Board in reply to statements as reported in the press from Representatives Taber and French, to the effect that motion pictures unfit for men in the United States Navy have been shown on board of the Fleet and that the National Board had passed these films. This statement, I think, will tend to corroborate the statement introduced into the record by Mr. Connolly this morning.

Mrs. KAHN. Can not we have that read?

Mr. BARRETT. If you care to. It is pretty long. Second, I would like to introduce into the record an open letter written to Representative Swoope, in reply to certain statements about the National Board which were printed in the Congressional Record, based on statements made by the proponents of censorship at the hearing here in Washington in 1916.

Mr. FENN. Without objection, those will be included in the record. (The statements above referred to are as follows:)

STATEMENT OF NATIONAL BOARD OF REVIEW IN REPLY TO STATEMENTS REPORTED IN THE PRESS FROM REPRESENTATIVES TABOR AND FRENCH TO THE EFFECT THAT MOTION PICTURES UNFIT FOR THE MEN IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY HAD BEEN SHOWN ON BOARD THE FLEET, AND THAT THE NATIONAL BOARD HAD PASSED THESE FILMS.

The national board of review is not a censorship board in the narrow sense of the word, except as the carefully ascertain public opinion of the picturegoing masses which the board endeavors to reflect exerts a censorship control. The board's review work places the main emphasis on the selection and classification of motion pictures. This constructive work of selection of the better films, classifying them according to the various age types and character groupings of audiences, together with the publication of this information to individuals and affiliated groups helping in the support and encouragement of better films, might very properly have been called to the attention of the Committee on