Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1915-03-29
MOVIE MEN ATTACK
CONSTTTUTTONALTTYO OF
THE CENSORSHIP LAW
Film Companies, in Briefs,
Ask Court to Declare Act
Null and Void -Tnterfer-
ence With Property
Rights, Main Contention.

hlgnCS, MAIN contention
Briefs in the attempt Of certain motto
picture exchange men to have the censo
law declared Unconstitutional were nle
IN the Supreme Court in this city toda!
by George Q. Horwitz, counsel for th
Buhalo branch Of the Mutual Film Com
pany the Mutual Film Company OF Penn
sylvania and the Interstate Films Com
pany
In legal circles the case Is considered as
OF supreme Importance, involving as il
does the entire principle Of censorship.
Many new contentious and points have
beer raised by the appellants to attack
the constitutionality Of the law. which
was enacted by the Legislature of 1911.
The original case, on which the appeal
ls based, came into the courts early in
1914. when Albert II, Brown. William
Sacheeninaier and Vernon r. Carrick,
trading as the overlook Theatre were
hailed into court for exhibiting films with
out the censor's permission The Court
q o. common Pleas, after repeated hearings
and postponements decided that the
censor had the legal right to demand his
signature on films, but that he and the
assistant censor must view all films in
person. the statute not giving the censor
ants
Ahe appellants IN the present instance
nau furnished the films to the Overbrook
Theatre and at once entered the appcal
Ihe briefs in the appeal. which consist
OF more than 800 printed pages, raise tho
novel point that the Legislature has not
the power TO invent a new crime which !
In this instance, is the exhibition of uu-
censored pictures. The main contentious |
OF the appeal are:
POINTS OF APPEAL.
The police power of the Legislature
to seek protection for an "unlawful
act Of Assembly is challenged.
The censor act Is an "unlawrul and
unreasonable and arbitrary exercise
OF police power. because 1t deprives
the anpellants-of-t their liberty and
property without due process of law,
IN violation of the 14th amendment of
the United States Constitution and the
BIZ of Rights of the state Constitu-
ton.'
Ihe censor law amouns to an ''un-
constitutional delegation of the lcgis-
lative power possessed solely by the
General Assembly"
The act is declared unconstitutional
and void, mot because it relates to
the moving picture business, subject
10 winch the police power extends
out because the provisions of this act
dealing with that subject amount to a
wholly arbitrary unreasonable and
The act gives them uhe chief CEN
bor and his woman assstant) the
power to make such determinations Gas
to propriety of films) without hear
ing and affords no right of appeal"
The act "deprives persons and cor
porations of their right to sell, rent
and exhibit moving pictures.
without first obtaining certain exami-
nations and approvals of such pic
lures. which examinations and ap-
not
makes impossible to obtain by falling
To provide adequate machinery for
that purpose"
(. OTHER STATES INVOLVED.
The last contention is,regarded as one
OF the most important in the brief At
present Philadelphia is the distributing {
point for films for this State, South Jer- :
sey, Delaware and Maryland and por- /
tons of West Virginia and Virginia. I'm S
der the censor act. no exchange in this :
city :ean rent. or sell film to a Baltl-
more theatre for instance, without first 7
obtaining the consent of the censor. In
other words. the censor act applies to
New Jersey, Maryland and Delaware as y
we'll as to this State
The reference to inadequate machinery
is based upon ruling of the Court of
Common Pleas. which held that the CEN W
sor had no right to delegate the CEN 81
serial powers to any one He and his Z
woman assistant can judge 60 reels a G.
day, or say $50 reels week. AS there a
are submitted more than 200 reels II
week, the contention of inadequacy is OBJ fl
Yious. > -, In
The applicants cite decisions of the Sill d'
preme Court to prove their contention
that the fact that the appellants have al
no right 10 appeal from the determine er
tions of the censors is sufficient in itself &c
TO render the act unconstitutional" fr
Another point raised In the briefs is; Ii
What happens when the two censors. OF
giewing film jointly, cannot agree on its to
merits? The brief alleges that under IN
'ueh conditions no decision can be reach he
I'd and that, in consequence, the owner w,
II the film would be deprived OF his prom ar
rty Illegally and without due process of he
aw. ~
stilI a further contention is that the sc
legislature delegated the law-making
'ower to the two censors, when the CEN
or act permitted them to make their
wn Standards as TO what constitutes CT
n Objectionable film
The final argument of the acts un-
is In the allegation I
hat the laws of the State are contra. Sc,
ened In that the censorial act is not thi
daEPPfhad in 70 at