coming into your city, the same conditions may not exist in some other towns where they do not have a censorship of that kind? In other words, while you are protecting your city, are you not throwing the danger on some other city that is without such protection? Mrs. RICHARDSON. I do not believe, they take that much notice of us.

Mr. ROBSION. Along that same line, while you have a large community at Atlanta, what about the pictures that are shown in the little villages down throughout the States, or in those mining regions that the professor from Johns Hopkins spoke about? Have you ever looked into that situation?

Mrs. RICHARDSON. As a club woman--and I did not wish to bring that into this discussion in anyway-as a club woman, I go throughout my State, and visit every little town in my State, and I have found, without any question, the same full cooperation with the little exhibitors that we have in Atlanta.

Mr. ROBSION. Undoubtedly, during the past five years the improper pictures have been shown in some parts of the great State of Georgia.

Mrs. RICHARDSON. Yes, sir; but there is a Better Films Committee in almost every town in Georgia, in full cooperation with the

managers.

Mr. BLACK. You do not think that the moral taste of Atlanta is any better or higher than the moral taste of rural America, do you? Mrs. RICHARDSON. No, sir; I say that if we demand clean pictures we will have clean pictures, and I think that America does demand clean pictures.

Mr. NELSON. You cut out of the pictures the parts you disapprove. Mrs. RICHARDSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. NELSON. You cut out the part that, in your opinion, should not be shown in Atlanta.

Mrs. RICHARDSON. Yes, sir. For instance, in passing upon a film, I came upon a love scene. It was a very vivid love scene in a way, and I just thought I would get the reaction of some one else to that. There was not anything wrong with it, but I am very old fashioned and it did not exactly appeal to me. It was not the way I was made love to many thousands of years back. Therefore, I thought I would get the reaction of some girls of the present day. They said it was perfectly delicious, and that the lover was perfectly grand. There was not the slightest thought of anything bad about it on their part.

Mr. ROBSION. Doctor Chase, do you have another witness?

Canon CHASE. Doctor Scanlon would like to make a brief statement.

STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES SCANLON, GENERAL DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MORAL WELFARE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PITTSBURGH, PA.

Doctor SCANLON. Mr. Chairman, I represent the Department of Moral Welfare of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of America.

Mr. ROBSION. How long have you held that position?

Doctor SCANLON. Twenty-two years. That is commonly known as the northern branch of the Presbyterian church. I am also president of the Federal Motion Picture Council in America.

Mr. ROBSION. How long have you held that position?

Doctor SCANLON. Since it was incorporated-a year ago last June. Mr. ROBSION. In making your statement, state in two or three sentences what your duties are in each one of those capacities.

Doctor SCANLON. My duties in connection with the Presbyterian Church include the general subjects under the head of temperance and moral welfare, which includes juvenile welfare, under which this question of motion pictures comes. I could name other departments of the work, but they have no connection with this directly. The church which I am representing in this capacity was the first national church body to seek cooperation along this line. In 1922, the assembly instructed the board of which I am the secretary, to invite a conference with other churches and religious agencies for the consideration of this question. That conference was held in this city in December of that year. Then on the recommendation of this body, certain resolutions were passed and submitted to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, which is the highest court of that body. We were instructed to continue this cooperation. This was followed by another conference, which was called in February, 1923. Then the third conference was called in Feburary, 1924, both being held in this city. The fourth conference, and in which a great many denominations and other organizations united, was called and held in February of this year in Chicago. The church with which I am connected has 10,000 churches, 10,000 ministers, 48,000 elders, and 1,600,000 members of the Sunday schools, and 1,900,000 communicants. Both the church and certain religious organizations connected with it began a study of this question ten years ago. In this work we have had the cooperation of other bodies both ecclesiastical and nonecclesiastical. The Federal Council of Motion Pictures of America was incorporated under the laws of the State of New York in June, 1925.

I wish to call attention to two or three facts, and will then submit a brief here for inclusion in your record, if you will. First, all that has been said by anybody here, or that may be said, concerning wholesome motion pictures, has our most hearty and sincere approval and of those whom we represent. We believe in wholesome motion pictures. Nothing need be said in commendation of certain pictures that have been named as to their wholesomeness, because what we are objecting to are the unwholesome ones, which for the most part the forces on the other side have not mentioned, and which they would probably deny as being thoroughly unwholesome pictures. Those are the ones that are in question. This thought is worthy of consideration, that the Better Films Committee, as represented by the last speaker, ought to be understood by everybody as a subsidiary organization of the Hays organization.

I want to submit at this point 30 reasons for Federal regulation of motion pictures. I will read just a few of them and will submit the others for the record. They are as follows:

Because practically every civilized country, except the United States and some South American States, have some form of regulation.

Because the repeated promises and failures of the industry to reform itself shows its insincerity or inability or both.

Because it persists in showing to millions of people daily (about half of them children) pictures which incite to crime, immorality, disrespect for law, disparagement of sacred, social, and religious institutions; suggests methods of crime and shows means of escape.

Because many pictures utterly misrepresent us to other peoples and them to us.

Because of unfair and unethical business practices and methods.

Because it places almost unlimited influence in the hands of a very small number of people.

Because it seeks to influence the press and control legislation and political action.

Because regulation of national and international industries and enterprises is a proper function of the Federal Government.

Because there is no more danger in Federal regulation of this industry than in the coinage of money, banking, immigration, food inspection, the making of treaties with other powers, and many other things.

Because Federal regulation is the only method of securing uniformity of a necessary minimum standard of morals and giving ready and effective relief from existing evils.

Because courts of justice do not offer prompt and effective relief, since in this matter they can only act after the evil is done.

Because standards of decency in thought, language, and conduct are not person nor local.

Because, just as we need local, State, and National boards of health to protect us against physical pestilence, we need motion-pitture boards to protect us against moral pestilence.

Because Professor Burgess, of the Chicago University, found from a survey of 400,000 public-school children in that city that the motion picture gave nearly all of them wrong views of life.

Because the Chamber of Commerce of Cleveland, Ohio, after a three years' study, reported that, in its judgment, Federal regulation was the only remedy for the evils complained of.

Because many prominent people and several representative organizations have withdrawn from the Committee on Public Relations as inefficient and unsatisfactory.

Because certain large producers of motion pictures have combined with some of the foulest publications in America to extend their circulations and mislead young women by tempting offers of positions with the films industry if they will help extend the circulation of these vicious magazines.

Because the motion-picture industry is one of the most potential means of education for good and source of innocent recreation and ought not to be prostituted so largely to evil purposes.

Because one of the producers of some of the vilest pictures shown has insulted the old ministers of this country, especially of the Presbyterian Church, by offering a percentage of the receipts from a picture by him if they will join in its production and thus advertise him and his pictures.

Because the Presbyterian Church invited the cooperation of other churches and organizations and has approved their findings on several occasions.

Because other churches, following our initiative and honoring our request, have banded themselves together to help cleanse the screen, we must press forward.

Because no State or country which has had regulation of the motion picture has ever repealed it.

Because the proposed regulation can, without increasing taxes, with justice and propriety be made more than financially self-supporting.

Because the natural, necessary, and wholesome recreation of millions of people is degraded, and one of the greatest inventions of mankind commercialized to the hurt of the public.

Because when other churches and organizations, other countries and seven Commonwealths in our country, besides cities and towns, have found regulation necessary and desirable, the churches can not afford to take a backward step. Because various high State courts, and twice the Supreme Court of the United States, has decided motion pictures are not in the same legal category as books, papers, etc., and have always held the law regulating them to be constitutional.

Because motion pictures is the only great national and international industry which is without any satisfactory form of regulation.

Because we require a license of professional and business men, and because it is not unjust to make similar requirements of those who are powerfully influencing public sentiment and ideals by the screen.

Because it is impossible to let a few men exploit the morals of the Nation and the world, and equally impossible for local police to control the situation while 18,000 motion-picture theaters in 48 States and 4 Territories attended by 15,000,000 people daily are contaminating the morals and debasing the ideals of civilization.

Because our church is the friend and not the enemy of motion pictures and dces not desire to hurt the industry but to help it by eliminating unwholesome features that it may instruct, entertain, and refresh without injuring anyone.

Mr. Chairman, I have here a pamphlet, which includes this brief, which I have been reading, which covers 15 pages in all. But part of it is historical and does not need to go in. I would like to submit it for approval.

The CHAIRMAN. I think it would be all right to let the little pamphlet go in.

Mr. HALE. Mr. Chairman, do you not think the other side should be allowed to see it and see if it requires an answer?

Doctor SCANLON. I am perfectly willing for them to see it.

Mr. HALE. I realize that.

Mr. ROBSION. Have you handed a copy of it to the opponents of the bill?

Doctor SCANLON. I will give them a copy so that they will have an opportunity to answer it; and I will bring other copies later. Mr. HALE. I have no objection, if they are allowed to answer it; and their brief is already in the record.

Doctor SCANLON. It has been published for nearly a year.
Mr. ROBSION. Have you any objection?

Mr. O'CONNER. No.

Mr. ROBSION. Let it go in.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

DEFINITIONS

66

66

66

1. The terms 'censorship," 'control," and "regulation" are often used interchangeably but in fact are quite different in spirit and method. Censorship" in America is usually understood to mean the elimination or deletion of something regarded as objectionable. It is negative rather than positive. It does not imply the authority to mod.fy or substitute something wholesome for that which is offensive or unwholesome.

2. "Regulation" as used in this connection contemplates the prevention of the introduction and exhibition of objectionable matter. It permits the substitution of the wholesome for the unwholesome, the change of titles and subtitles, the proper supervision of advertising matter displayed on billboards, entrances to theaters, etc. It warns against the production of objectionable pictures, thus preventing the waste of time, labor, and money and the harm that might result from showing such pictures. In this sense regulation is constructive.

66

Because the word censorship" has a more opprobious, drastic, and arbitrary implication than "regulation," those who are opposed to any form of control of motion pictures insist on using the term " censorship," while those who wish to deal more constructively with the subject say that "regulation more nearly expresses what they have in mind. In short, censorship is remedial, regulation is preventive.

INTERESTING FACTS

The most recent available statistics show the following facts in regard to motion pictures in the United States:

1. Capital invested in the business, $1,500,000,000, making it rank fourth financially in our industries.

2. Daily attendance, 20,000,000.

3. Annual paid admissions, $500,000,000.

4. Number of theaters, 18,000.

5. Whole number of employees, 300,000, of whom 50,000 are engaged in production.

6. Amount ɛnnually paid for newspaper and magazine advertising, $5,000,000. 7. Amount annually paid for pictures, printing, engraving, etc., $7,000,000. 8. Number of feet of film exported annually, 200,000,000, or 37,878 miles, going to 100 different countries.

9. Every civilized country in the world except the United State's and some States. in South America, have some form of censorship.

10. There are only seven States in the Union, New York, Pennsylvania. Maryland, Virginia, Florida, Ohio, and Kansas, which have any form of state-wide regulation, though practically all of the larger cities and many of the smaller towns have censorship of their own.

11. One corporation claims to control more than 90 per cent of the motionpicture business in the United States.

12. The testimony of competent authorities is that, with some honorable exceptions, while pictures are improving artistically they are steadily growing worse morally.

RELIABLE TESTIMONY

On this latter point the official report of the Board of Censors of the State of New York reporting to the legislature of 1925 after saying that nearly 1,000,000 of people in the State of New York, or one-tenth of the population, see motion pictures daily, adds that "It is estimated that more than 50 per cent of those who see pictures are children." It then recites that during the year eliminations were made from 627 pictures, 34 of which were condemned in toto, and that 3,780 objectionable scenes were cut out and 566 titles changed. These same pictures may be shown and are shown in States which have no censorship, to thousands of audiences comprised of millions of people, young and old.

The Educational Screen for September, 1924, reported that in July of that year the Chicago Motion Picture Board of Censors in examining 13 feature films, rejected five, gave permits to three to be shown to adults only, made 69 cuts in one and 63 in another. Ten of the 13 pictures had to be drastically treated before being shown at all.

The Chicago Motion Picture Censor Board says that pictures now submitted are worse than they have been in 12 years.

Mrs. Rufus M. Gibbs, chairman of the Better Films Committee of the Daughters of the American Revolution for Maryland, Miss Mary R. Caldwell, chairman of the Better Films Committee for the Daughters of the American Revolution of Tennessee, Mrs. Chas. E. Merriam, recent national chairman of the Better Films Committee of the Congress of Mothers and Parent-Teachers Association, Mrs. Robbins Gilman, of the Woman's Cooperative League of Minneapolis, Canon William Sheafe Chase, of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and many others, all say pictures are getting worse morally.

Rev. Dr. William Rosenau, a rabbi of Baltimore, says he has ceased to attend motion pictures because he is unwilling to give the sanction of his presence where pictures are frequently put on the screen which are an insult and an injury to common decency and where they frequently teach trickery, robbery, infidelity, and licentiousness.

Mrs. Howard D. Bennett, of the Citizens League of Maryland for Better Motion Pictures, says, "The films of the past two years have far exceeded anything previously produced in the extravagant and subtle glorification of vice, drunkenness. dishonesty, and contempt for the law. This has been demonstrated in the filming of many obscene and indecent books, such as are