STATEMENT OF REV. DR. CLIFFORD GRAY TWOMBLY

Doctor TWOMBLY. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, I am glad to be able to testify here, as far as I can this morning, because I feel this moving-picture situation is one of the most serious situations we have confronting us in the country..

One-third of all the films shown in this country to-day, shown to 20,000,000 people daily, or, I would judge to some sixty million different people a week, are in some part sensual and salacious, and they are designedly and intentionally so in my estimation, for profit.

I remember when I first came to this conclusion. It was when I saw a film called Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea, which most of us read as boys. In that film as shown, in order to make it spicy, according to the motion-picture men, they had introduced two attempted rapes, something, of course, which were not in the story as written by Jules Verne. I went to see a month ago the Merry Widow, which is a fairly good light opera, but in the motion-picture play of the Merry Widow there was inserted a dirty scene in a bedroom, which I shall not describe to you. In the film of the Wanderer, there is inserted one hour of the worship of Ishtar, the Phoenician goddess of love, the vilest kind of a scene.

Now, how do I know but that one-third of all the films are of this character? I have been in closest touch with the moving-picture situation for 15 years. I have sat with the board of censors of Pennsylvania from time to time, until Governor Sproul scuttled it; I am no longer allowed to go there. I have directed eight investigations in the City of Lancaster, covering a period of 10 years. Those investigations have been made by the chamber of commerce, by the Women's Club, consisting of 400 members; by groups of from 16 to 24 ministers of the city; by groups of college men, professors and their wives, and others of the college; by the law and order society; and the last one by 50 representative men and women from all walks of life in the city of Lancaster, who again found what all the rest had found true during these 10 years, that one-third of the films, or from 25 to 35 per cent it varied-were salacious and deterimental to public morals in their estimation for the following reasons, which I will briefly state:

I would like to say that I do not wish to appear to you fanatical or narrow in this matter, nor do I wish to have my fellow citizens of Lancaster appear to you in such a light. I am speaking now, you understand, of nearly 33 per cent of the pictures, and so are they, in these reports when they give us their reasons for regarding them as harmful and immoral.

The first reason for this conclusion is because of indecent, sensual dancing, and even open and lewd muscle dancing. Whether you are all familiar with what muscle dancing is, I do not know, but I feel that I ought to say this: that it is the imitation, the vile, exaggerated imitation, of sexual intercourse on the part of the woman, and it is intended to be such. That is what it is in the East, and that is what it is here on the motion-picture screen. It ought not to be permitted in my estimate on any stage or moving-picture platform in this country. It can be understood in only one way. It is open, vile, suggestive imitation.

Next, because of open and intended sex appeals and the showing of improper and immoral situations; the exhibition of houses of ill fame and of dens of vice.

Another reason, the showing of pictures that brings out the justification of private revenge.

Lastly, because of this enormous tendency to destroy the sanctity of marriage and to make light of personal purity.

Allow me to give you a few examples of such films, that you may judge of the reasonableness of our characterization of them as harmful. I will give one or two from a year ago

Mr. BLACK. As you go along, will you tell whether they have been passed by the board of censors.

Doctor TWOMBLY. These have all been passed by the Pennsylvania Board of Censors.

A year ago in our town was shown the Shadows of the East, in which muscle dancing openly appears, and finally the hero of the film is led to the bridal bed by his bride, who is dressed only in her night clothes, and he only in a kimona, and after he has felt her body over from top to bottom, he is led toward the bridal bed and the only thing that stops the scene is that suddenly the ghost of his former wife appears, and that stops them from going on in the

scene.

In the play, The Arab, there is shown a street of harlots, in Tunis, I believe, and their solicitations. That takes up a large part of the film.

In Broken Barriers, there is a scene of a rich man and his mistress in a bungalow. She is sitting on his lap half-clothed, and he fondles her over and over, and his friends are seen leading half nude women continually out into the darkness.

Six months ago, I saw the play, Soul Fire in Lancaster, with Richard Barthelmess and Bessie Love in the leading part. There was much aggressive love-making between the American hero and this half-clad South Sea Island girl. The worst feature of that is that on the night before the wedding, when the natives are celebrating the wedding feast, she comes to him at the solicitation of her family and friends, and says, "Now, I will show you the love dance,” and she goes through the performance of this obscene, nasty, suggestive muscle dance before her bridegroom.

One month ago, we had the Merry Widow in Lancaster, where girls are represented as the legitimate prey of foreign officers, and the officers seek them. The heroine, who is Mae Murray, marries an old roué of about 70 years of age, who has plenty of money, and the scene is shown where she is awaiting him on the marriage bed, clothed in black tights and a kimono, and the old roué approaches and embraces his bride, but he becomes so excited he has a stroke from his excitement so she is rescued from him, and he dies.

One week ago, we had the Wanderer, which uses the problem of the Prodigal Son to introduce the worship of Ishtar, the goddess of love, and we had one hour of that sensuality of a revolting type. Even at the end, where the Prodigal comes home, his father refuses to receive him, which, of course, is contrary to the Bible story-but his mother intercedes over and over again and finally he is received. But the whole thing was an excuse for the hours of Ishtar worship.

Now, these things occur in one-third of the films, in a State where a board of censors makes from 50 to 150 eliminations every week for lust, indecency, and crime, that many eliminations from the films. that are submitted to them. What these films are elsewhere where no eliminations are made, I leave you to judge.

Of what use, you may ask is a State board of censors which leaves in such stuff as I have referred to? Well, they make 50 to 150 eliminations each week. It would be so much worse, even if this board were not doing its work, and they forced the movie men toward a uniform Federal regulation. The more States that have such boards, just so much nearer Federal regulation approaches, and the more strictly and fairly will they do their work. And yet, I am perfectly willing to admit that such boards run as our State board in Pennsylvania now seems to be run, are utterly inadequate. There are only seven of them in the 48 States, and they are more or less politically controlled. These films, 33 per cent of the whole output, as I know through 10 to 15 years experience with them, are striking at the cornerstone of American strength and civilization. The triangle side is their deep theme, and its influence is against the sanctity of the home and the family. I took a list of the leading actors and actresses of the screen not long ago, and every one of that particular list that I happened to have had been divorced and re-married from one to four times, and this week Peggy Joyce announces her fifth marriage adventure. Is it any wonder that these people in the motion pictures regard marriage in a light way. considering the pictures they are in?

Gloria Swanson is called "Glorious Gloria" and is represented as the ideal of American womanhood and girlhood, and she has been divorced four times, I believe, already, or married four times. Is it any wonder that there is a laxity of morals among our youth when women with those records are made the ideals of our boys and girls? Now, of course, I have nothing personal against any of these actors or actresses. I am merely taking these examples to show the situation. The home is the bulk of our strength, and these films, 333 per cent of the whole output, whatever they may be aiming at, their result is to undermine the home as fast as it can be undermined through impressions of the eye.

When I think of Mr. Will Hays's plan of reforming the movies from within-although I have come to believe that his real job is to defeat all attempts at regulation of the movies-when I think of the morals of the leading actors and actresses in the film, for whom I have nothing but kindly feeling; when I think of the impossibility of getting court action on the films in any reasonable time; when I think of the inadequacy of State boards of censorship, which are often influenced polítically and controlled by politicians, some sort of reasonable Federal regulation seems to be imperative and essential, and the only way out, if we are going to try to keep American life and moral standards pure and true and throw a reasonable protection around our boys and girls.

You can just take it that 75 per cent of the 20,000,000 people who go to the moving pictures every day are under 24 years of age. I am not against moving pictures. I can see immense possibilities in them for good. I believe that they can be made a great power for

22126-26- -3

good in this country, but we want them to be clean. We want them to be true to American life and to American standards.

Mr. FLETCHER. You said that you were not permitted by Governor Sproul to be with the board in the investigation of pictures any more. Why is that?

Mr. TWOMBLY. The moving-picture men got a regulation passed whereby after that time I have mentioned visitors were not allowed, except by special permit, to be present with the board when censoring pictures. It was a great public document. It was held that it had to be done in private, because they could not show the results of what they were doing.

Mrs. KAHN. Did you represent some organization at that place, or were you just there as an individual?

Mr. TWOMBLY. Before this board of censorship?

Mrs. KAHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. TWOMBLY. I was just an individual.

Mrs. KAHN. Where did the board meet-in Lancaster?

Mr. TWOMBLY. No, madam; in Philadelphia.

Mr. BLACK. Do you not think that the real breakdown in American home life is not because of books and pictures, but because of our divorce laws?

Mr. TWOMBLY. No, sir; I think we have been reaping the harvest that we have sown, and that we have been reaping it for the last 15 years in the matter of pictures. I would not say that they were the only cause of the decline, but I do say that they reach more of our young people than anything else.

Mr. FLETCHER. Those pictures you have referred to here are passed by a censorship board?

Mr. TWOMBLY. Yes, sir; they were, and we found great fault with them for doing that. We sent our report to the governor. This was a year ago, and the governor was so much shocked at what was brought out in the report that he asked for the details, which we gave him in full. He then hauled the moving-picture board over the coals, or so I am told, because I was not there, and the pictures improved for three or four months I should say; but after six or eight months had gone, they were down to the same level. Then we had this further investigation, and we sent the governor a report of that investigation, with full details, but that was only acknowledged by 'his secretary. We have written to the present governor three times, but have not had any answer to those letters. Therefore, practically the same conditions prevail now that prevailed when we made our first report.

Mr. BLACK. Who were the members of the Pennsylvania board, or from what walks of life did they come?

Mr. TWOMBLY. One was Mr. Knapp, who was connected with the Inquirer; one was Mr. Richardson, who ran a political paper in Philadelphia, and a grocery store; and one was Mrs. Niver, who belongs to the Roman Catholic Church, and who has been a staunch supporter of purity in the home. She has done great work, as far as she has been allowed to do it. Of course, she has been outvoted at times. She was not outvoted, however, on the old board when Doctor Oberholtzer was there.

Mr. ROBSION. We want to hear two other witnesses in opposition. Canon CHASE. We have one witness, Doctor Schwartz, of Baltimore, whom I would like to call upon now, but he has asked to be

last. Therefore we would be glad to have representatives of the other side heard at this time.

Mr. ROBSION. If there is no objection on the part of the opposition, we will hear some of them now. The testimony of the witnesses will appear in the record in regular order, and the testimony of the other opposition witnesses will appear later on in the record, so that there will be no break in the continuity of the testimony.

Mr. CONNOLLY. I will now introduce Mrs. Thomas A. McGoldrick, of the International Federation of Catholic Alumni.

STATEMENT OF MRS. THOMAS A. McGOLDRICK, REPRESENTING THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF CATHOLIC ALUMNI

Mrs. McGOLDRICK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, it is my privilege to represent here to-day the International Federation of Catholic Alumni, an organization of 475 high schools and colleges, and an active membership of more than 60,000 alumni. We might go further and count the pupils and the teaching staffs of these schools if it were our purpose to impress you with numbers alone. I am here to present to you their definite objections to the two bills, H. R. 4094, presented by Mr. Swoope, and H. R. 6233, presented by Mr. Upshaw.

A little more than a month ago we registered before a committee such as this our formal objections to the Curtis-Reed bill. Our objections to that measure and to these bills to-day are very much the same.

In the first place, we feel that there is no need of Federal control of the motion-picture industry any more than there is need of Federal control of schools. America's sore danger lies in becoming over-Federalized. We feel that Washington, as a pivotal center of government, can not handle so many unwieldly problems without becoming top-heavy.

In the next place, we feel that it is un-American and against that spirit of liberty which is our constitutional heritage to harness us with the supervision of politicians on those things that are our own intimate right to decide for ourselves. Real Americans are becoming sick of laws that legislate morals. Real Americans think, and think right, that each one of us is entitled to be the guardian of his own conscience.

We do not want Federal control, which is really political control, of anything that affects the general public, such as its amusements, its readings, its music, or its religion. Where shall we stop in this direction? Do you gentlemen really think that a group of political office seekers, at $9,000 or $10,000 a year, will accomplish the purpose stated in these two bills? The last speaker has just told you that the State censorship board was an evil thing, largely controlled by politics. No, gentlemen, not any more than a group of administration appointees would successfully direct a standardized religion for America or even a standardized music.

Our American people are awake, and their consciences are not dull. The popular taste has already improved the motion picture more constructively and more positively than the proponents of this bill would admit. Motion pictures are better, more artistic, cleaner,