New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-05-13
CONTROLS PICTURE Shows
FoIks's Ordinance Up for Hear
ina Before Aldermen Tomorrow.
600 HOUSES AFFECTED
All Seating More than ooo
Would Be Subject to the
Theatre Law,


Aldermen tomorrow, when the hearing on
the ordinance proposed by Alderman foiNS
and backed by the Citizens Union ana other
organizations providing for the regulation
Of the construction Of moving picture the
aires is held. AS there are six hundred OF
these houses in the city. and the daily at
tendance at them averages nearly 30O,VVo'
mostly women and children, the interests
involved and the amount at stake are large
BY the provisions Of Alderman Folks's pro-
uosed ordinance special requirements in the
construction Of moving picture houses with
a maximum seating capacity Of six hun
dled must be observed. especially in the
matter Of fire exits, lighting. ventilation ana
50 nitation. Buildings seating more tnan
six hundred will have TO be constructed IN
accordance with the theatre law and resu-
lations are provided for smaller houses
whereas by the present law practically no
special requirements are laid down TOT
houses seating less than three hundred.
The opposition is coming, in the first
place, from the commercial interests. be-
cause the present law gives them free
hand in theatres seating less than three
hundred.
eraI civic organizations that demand mu-
nicipal censorship Of all films TO be exhio-
tied in the moving picture theatres OF this
city. The proposed Folks ordinance IL Is
urged should be amended by incorporating
the proposed Nicoll ordinance, which pro-
yidcs that every film must be shown first
to the Bureau Of Licenses and receive
written permit before II can be exhibited.
The only censorship now eXerted comes
from the National Board Of Censorship,
volunteer organization which Is supported
by the moving picture interests and passes
uuon the trust pictures in the rooms or the
Motion Picture Patents Company and upon
the independent films elsewhere.
Such board. it is said cannot he en-
tircly free. and as it is not official It's de-
oisiony do not necessarily have 70 be re-
galdcd. and there IS no provision In the
laU assuring the exclusion or expurgation
Of immoral or obscene films coming from
ilroad.
Another argument Of the opponents OF
IN. Folks ordinance is that some films never
come before the National Censorship Board
u all and that tho so-called special re
lease" films. which are supposed 20 be
limited ~ travel. historical. Biblical sub
j..t- and prizodghts. contain many feature
a,u,uablc Of censorship. Not AL censored
films they say. arc changed in accordance
with 49,. boards recommendations before
bong ont around the country.
ono IL tho secretaries is supposed 10 look
,,t for this and 20 keep track Of all such
films but without much success. because
rruro +. shown only ono day IN A certain
r..atrc. and then moves - som" other
place. Tho fart that tho agreement h"-
tv.ou IN. national board and the manufact-
jurors is q purely oral one and n" board
ra- no means of enforcing Us decisions
SHOWS that official control Is demanded. II
is said.
Tho provisions Of the Folks ordinance
arc ~ this matter ineffective. it's oppo-
ueu's contend and DO not attack tho "''l
81 it's source Tic ordinance proposes
that moving picture theatres 10 licensed
and inspected Dg m" BOARD Of Licenses,
and that the Inspectors Of the bureau are
10 report f. tho Mayor ANY offence against
morality. dcrcucy or public welfare.
y, tire Folks ord'ranc" complot" power
Is lodged with IN" Mayor. giving him the
aurhorit, to rcvoh" o license for any Of
tcuco against morality Those who ask
FOR q municipal censorship stat" that this
Us not censorship hut merely police con
troll. aud expensive and unsatisfactory Al
that cut Of fairness To the exhibitors.
II is said. the responsibility for showing
offensive films should not be attached 70
them as II is by tn" Folks ordinance. but
10 tho manufacturers
Tho exhibitors are forced to take what
ever may -" sent them. and the exhibitors
arc I'm favor of an official censorship
Twcuty-four cities I'm this country have
some form ot censorship of their own and
four moro ar" about To establish It.
On the other side adherrnts of tho
Folks ordinance maintain that the ordi-
nance WAS drawn M in order to make the
theatres a. safe. commodiouS and sanitary
a. poSsibl" iu tn" matter of building and
uIauHGcm"ut. inc question Of supcrNis-
Iug the hlms and prohibiting the bad ones
is entirely another matter. The ordinance
/, believed 10y many To Ice the most sat
isfactory. scientific and constructive piece
~ legislation along the lines of safe
guarding life and health Yet proposed.
The bill makes no provision for tho CEN
sorship of the moving pictures, but limits
itself 10 the theatre without regard to
what is shown therein. The matter OF
safe construction and of proper regula-
ton for the prevention of fire and other
accidents should come first, il Is said.
Censorship IL another thing. and should
be considered separately in another ordi-
nance.