The evening world., 1913-06-07

vsst1gaaen. Re hes vetsA n favo'
aaDo-ars haeasA.
Elm other words. he and similar IN
osPssted' Aldermen. who are placed on
eAs board 10 protect the public interest.
substitute the word private for public
IA this particular case they are prac'
oaaussments Of the poor people. Ana
for this the people pay enormous 'ntsr.
- IN the form Of foul air. IRE traps sho
crowded conditions.
"When you are confronted with ms
eoct that this man White. having hold
lnss In rival amusement places. 70 mads
chairman Of an investigating committee
sor moving pictures. and that this seit-
came committee. postponed. laid on she
shelf and finally did nothing whatever
With this thing. and that these idsnuca'
obstacles are still In existence. then
there 10 your reason for the hoIdup.
SELFISH THEATRE OWNERS
BANo TOGETHER.
~0We ridiculous excuse. after another 10
4. eRsrsd to put stumbling blocks in the
, eassage Of . yustinabie ordinance.
Il have. OF course. seen not only the
cause Of the opposition. but whence II
sprung. The cheap theatres Of the city
have no limitation put upon them ~ 70
audiences. They early banded together
. oppose this moving picture ordinance.
uniess the provision for an audience OF
- vas cut out Of II and the audience
tpt down to the old number Of W(
which preciudsd . iustinably expensive
resuirement.
"rhsir purpose 10 purely selnsh. Al
4 matter Of tact. the rivalry Of the
sowing picture shows with an audience
Of co would not hurt the cheap theatres
q the city. There p room enough fol
thsm all. But the propristors OF these
cheap theatres are Of different View
ana have thus far been influential
enough, one way and another. and b,
this means and by that. TO frustrat'
sAe massage OF the ordinance reports<
~ the commission. -.
'sThs commission which appointed
framed an ordinance. But they earl,
80 IN their deliberations that IN ords
that the expense OF the requirement.
Il their proposed ordinance could b.
borne. these places should Be permitte'
10 accommodate more than 800 persons
IN the city Of Boston The number per
mitted 10 90, and In other cities the
have . hike limit The commission
aualiy settled on 600 ~ being fa'
limit. II 10 absolutely necessary. .
they sav, that the audience should b
iarse enough to enable the proprietor
10 derive revenue enough to bear tn
expsuse OF complying with the require
nsnts Of the ordinance.
NOW GALLERY QUESTION WA
WORKED.
..rhe ordinance as framed By the Don
= nieuiou allowed q gallery. but provide
that Il should not have seating O
pacity of more than one-fourth OF u
4 snatlnr capacity Of the whole plac
The ordinance just passed cuts the "a
lery out. The effect y that movi'
picture place with capacity OF ""
reduced TO $50 by cutting the gallery ou
one Of a seating capacity Of too 10
duced to sOc by cutting the gallery OF
4 and 30 on.
y .xsus, n this iAgsAious ana isdirs
1vsy, these psopsisters Of cheap the
Xrce ere gsstang aeeonpaisAsd VI
thsy oeula not 6st liSeetay eeoo'
1aashsl. 4hs result ~ NEST unjust
prepr1stess Of moving picture shows.
1T means that In order TO have SCI
ins capacity OF coo II will be necessa
10 increase the ground space. and her
the rent and the cost Of constructi'
This IL wrong. There 10 no resA
for II.
FINALLY. when these theatre propr
tors saw they could not Set . "
reducing the seating capacity OF
moving picture shows. they bent III
efforts 10 have the galleries cut out
AZ them. which would accomplish the -
G4oct.
"ooms Of the Aldermen came to
ond said that the reasons for the p
tssAl 70 cut out the galleries we're q
thsee might bs immortality In the Z
~. WY immoreltty IN the saAl
* Osre thaa u ~ stAss eart .ef