New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-12-19
FEAR FILM LAW Invalid.
Clean Show Advocates Object to
Censorship Amendment.
"OPENS WAY TO GRAFT"
Think the Effect Will Be to Kill
Measure by Involving 1t
in Litigation.

Three main questions were raised yes
terdav by close students of the moving
picture situation In this city III as
cussing the passage OF the FOLK
ordinance and its suddenly acquired
amendment Tuesday In the Board Oh
Aldermen. The first was whether the
Board of Aldermen had the power to eX-
tend the functions Of the Board OF Edu-
cation: the second, whether the Mayor
had the right to veto the amendment
without vetoing the whole act. and' thiru'
whether the censorship provided Tor oy
the amendment would be constitutional
Michael Furst, formerly of the Corpora
ton Counsers office and chairman OF the
Mayors committee. which drafted the
Folks BILL laid particular emphasis on
this last point. He said that MS COM
mIttee had spent seven months In
thorough study OF moving picture con-
ditIons. and after careful consldera-
ton Of censorship had decided against
it for two reasons: First, because the
report of ex-Commissoner Fosdick had
shown that improper films had been
practically eliminated by the Natlonai
Board of Censcrs. and their own invesu-
cations upheld this contention; and sec
ond because there was grave doubt as
to the constitutionality OF censorship
in advance.
There is at present no official censor
ship I'm this state" said Mr.. Furst. and
the committee felt that IT might imperil
the whole law If it provided for one
The city ordinance against immoral cX-
hibtlons and the similar provision In the
Penal Code are both effective and are
amply enforced through the activities
of the National Board of Censors Under
these a moving picture proprietor eX-
hitting an indecent film may be con
victed by a jury. but whether you can
pass "A law vesting this power in an APP
pointed board is a constitutional ques-
ton"
Thinks Aldermen Exceeded Power.
Speaking on the first point Mr.. Furst
held that the powers OF the Board Of
Education were limited to the charter
and that II was not for the Board of
Aldermen either to amplfy or curtail
them Canon William Shcafe Chase,
chairman of the Social Service Committee
OF the Diocese Of Long Island. differed
/ +. 4
lie declared that II was the clear duty OF
one board Of the city government to co.
operate with every other board for the
public veal. and that he was convinced
from recent conversations with promi-
nent members OF the Board OF Education
that the board would willingly cooperate
with the Bureau OF Licenses I'm this mat
ter il IT were so directed by the Board
OF Aldermen.
The ordinance does not confer any eN-
ira power on the Board OF Education"
Canon Chase argued. 1T merely says
that no motion pictures are 10 be shown
in this city unless approved by the board
The board might refuse. and then there
would he no motion pictures. but I
hardly think It viii come to that"
Tho canon believed that II would be
impossible FOR the Mayor 20 veto the
amendment without disqualifying the
whole bill. and II he vetoed the bill. he
held. the Board Of Aldermen was enough
in earnest 10 pass II over his veto.
To this sentiment John Collier. score.
tary Of the National Board Of Censors.
took violent exception. declaring that the
clear object Of the Board Of Aldermen In
adding the amendment at the last mo-
mcnt and then pushing the bill through
was to kill the ordinance by involving II
In a maze Of litigation. II the board had
acted I'm good faith. he held. # would
have passed the original ordinance and
the amendment separately, 50 that each
might have stood on lts merits. lie con-
tinucd:
Whatever the fate 81 tho ordinance. u
will not affect the National Board OF
Ccnsors. great deal OF misundcrstand-
ing has arisen through the mistaken Inn
preston that the ordinance will leeislate
the Board OF Ccnsors out Of existence.
The Board Of Censors. however. is not an
official body, nor are its activities CON
fined to New York alone. II is national
in It's scope; II is not a substitute for
law; It is n cooperative agency outside
OF the political system. We do not OPP
pose a censorship board with legal power:
We want one. II 1t In constitutional But
We object to seeing the good measures OF
the Folks ordinance vitiated by clever
political trick"
Gilbert H. Montague, attorney for the
Women's Municipal League. said that
censorship ordinances similar TO that
provided for in the Bowling amendment,
were effective in other cities, and that the
Chicago ordinance had been twice upheld
by the Illinois Supreme Court.
"Opens Door for Police Graft"
Bolton Hall argued against the proposed
censorship, on the ground that 1t opened
another door for police extortion. Hc
said:
Governmental censorship Is dangerous
to liberty. All laws for the repression OF
vice. or OF what old women OF either sex
may think will lead 10 vice. open wide
door for police blackmail, for tyranny by
political organizations. and for business
monopoly An excellent system Of bust
ness censorship OF picture shows. based
on intelligent commerclalism. Is growing
up naturally. Why supplant ii with an
ordinance which ia TO be left to the elf
cient enforcement OF the successor OF