Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1899-12-26
EXHIBIT OF MOVING PICTURES
Question Raised as to Whether or Not
License Should Be Required.
Attorney Expresses Opinion That Law
Does Not Apply-PrObabIe Ref.
erence to Court,

Inc attention of Maj. Sylvester. the
chief of police, was invited several DAVIS
ago by Commissioner Ross to an exhibition
py moF1ng-picture machines. Mr. Ross ex-
pfa1hed that no license has been issued to
the person or persons conducting the exhi-
pltloh, ana he suggested that a policeman
IN citizen's clothes visit the place. inyesti-
gate the exhibition and submit a report
with regard to its character in order that
the Commissioners might determine what
action should be taken in the matter.
Detective McNamee was instructed to
make the investigation and report. This he
did, stating that he found nineteen ma
CHIMES in operation, in which 1t is necessary
70 crop nickel i'll the slot before the MIC
lures can be Seen He stated that he looked
at hve of the pictures, explaining that
they We're productions from life, and |
nave seen pretty near the same thing in
our theaters. What he meant by pretty
near the same thing Mr.. McNamee did not
state, but inspector Boardman, in forward
ing the report to the chief of police, said:
1t is a very difficult matter to decide
whether or not the exhibition is a violation
OF law, as it depends entirely upon what
construction one puts on the pictures as
McNamee says he has seen similar exhi-
bltlons on the stage"
Views of Major Sylvester.
Maj Sylvester, in forwarding the papers
to the Commissioners, expressed himself
as follows:
1t has been construed that when an OBJ
scene picture is placed or exhibited where
1t must be observed by the public, it comes
under the law; but when so situated that
persons must seek It or pay a price to oh
serve Tin other words. when under cover
the law does not apply. The law is de-
llcleht also IN not defining an obscene pic
ture. This appears to me to be an exhibit
ton for gain, and in my opinion a license
might be required for the same Of S. per
view" ~ =
The matter was referred by the Commits
sloners to the attorney for the District for
an opinion as to the power of the Commits
sioners to. require license to be taken out,
ana he has rendered an opinion to the eff
feet that he is unable to find any provision
OF law requiring a license to be taken out
for such an exhibition.
In his opinion, after describing the opera
ton of the machines, the attorney for the
District calls attention to the fact that a
nickel must be dropped in the slot of the
machine before it will operate The law
imposing licenses on trades, business, etc.
he states is an act of the late legislative
assembly, approved August 23, 1871. The
only provision therein which could in his
opinion, be held to be applicable to the ex-
hlbition is the seventeenth paragraph of
section twenty-one, which provides that
the managers of concerts, exhibitions and
balls for gain, not otherwise enumerated
or games of any kind, where an admission
fee is charged, shall pay for each day So.
Not Included.
In point of fact, however, tho attorney
explains further, no admission fee is charg-
ed where the machines in question are ex-
hibited. and he consequently concludes that
the show is not within the purview of the
section of the law referred to by him. If
the process or scheme by which the fee or
charge is collected, he states, was a mere
subterfuge, invented or intended to evade
the license law, the courts would. in his
opinion, doubtless sustain the authorities
in requiring license and exacting the tax
therefor. But the slot machine is not
he thinks, such a subterfuge.
Their attorneys opinion has not yet been
may dispose of the matter by directing him
to carry the question into the courts for
judicial determination.