New Britain herald., 1915-08-20
FRANK CASE FILM
 MAY BE BARRED
Supreme Court to Decide on Li-
 CenSe Commissioners Action

New York, Aug 20.-Whether the film play "The Frank Case" is to be barred from the movie rheaters of New York is to be decided in the s,1- preme court as the result of an order signed yesterday by Justice Dele- hanty directing George H. Bell. com missioner of licenses, to show ca,ise before Justice Whitaker on Tuesday why he should not be restrained from revoking the licenses of theaters dis playing "The Frank Case"
 The suit is brought by Samuel a. Edelstein and George K Hollands doing business as the Hollands Feature Film company at 145 West Fortv fifth street The complaint says the plaintiffs spent $1S,000 in producing the play and expect to receive back the expenditure and to make large profits by selling the right to exhibit the film, most of which was expected from Greater New York.
 Many Booked Film.
 Many New York managers had booked the film, the complaint says, when on July 31 last Commissioner Bell without having seen the film sent word to from 1,50O 70 1900 mov- ing picture licensees that if they ex- hibited the film their licenses would be forfeited. These managers can- celled their contracts, It Is alleged, and it has been necessary to lease the films elsewhere at improbable prices because the success of film in the country and abroad depends on its success in New York.
 The complaint alleges further that the film teaches a strong moral les son. and has been passed on favor ably by police chiefs and boards of censors in many cities throughout the United States. It is alleged that Com- missioner Bell has acted in a "ca- pricious, unreasonable and arbitrary manner"
 Employed 15O People.
 An affidavit by Ede1stein says his firm worked on the scenario of 'The Frank Case for a month and em- p1oyed 150 persons. They expected to make net profits of at least $50,O00. He says that Commissioner Bell sent out an order against the film as 'un- satisfactory because the National Board of Censors in February last condemned the picture Ion the ground that it portrays the story of a criminal case now pending in the ccurts.'
 Edelstein pointed out that Justice Whitaker, who is to head the pre- scnted application, decided in a suit brought over the presentation of a film play based on the iTranco-Prus- sian war that the National Board of Censors was a lf-constituted body, and it is a question how far a pub lie official charged with exercising official powers on his own judgment should base his action on the opinion ol the National Board Of CensOrs"
 Edelstcin Explains Story.
 Edelstein explains that the story as shown on the films is that a dis charged supertendent of the pencil ia ctory and a drunken negro porter were in conspiracy to throw sus- picion on Leo Frank. He refers to the statement of Supreme Court Jus tce Shearn, who went to Atlanta to investigate the case that the "irresist- ible conclusion to be reached from reviewing the record is not only that Frank is innocent but that the negro is guilty" Edelstein also says:
 'If it is proper for the press and public to urge Franks innocence and Conley's guilt, why is it not proper for us to do so in moving pictures?"
 The papers in the case were drawn before Frank was lynched and no mention is made of that fact.