The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1915-08-20
FIGHT Is ON TO SHOW
FRANK CASE FILM
Producers Of Picture Play
Take Step Against Thea
tire License Bar.
5000 SPENT ON DRAMA

Whether the film play The Frank
Case Is to be barred from h movie
theatres Of New York IL to be decided
In the Supreme Court as the result OF an
order signed yesterday by Justice Dele
hanty directing George H.. Bell, Com
missioner OF Llcensee. to show cause
before Justice Whitaker on Tuesday why
he should not be restrained from revok-
ing the licenses OF theatres displaying
The Frank Case"
The suit Is brought by Samuel q.
Edelstein and George X. Rolands. DIN
business as the Rolands Feature Film
Company at Ii5 West F~orty-fifth street.
The complaint says the plaintiffs spent
$4,000 in producing the play and ex-
peet to receive back the expenditure
to make large profits by selling the right
to exhibit the Aim. most OF which was
expected from Greater New York.
Many New York had hooked
the Aim, the complaint says. when on
July 81 last Commissioner Bell without
having se n the Aim sent word to from
1900 to 1900 moving picture licensees
that IL they exhibited the flm their "
censes would be forfeited. These man
ayers cancelled their contracts, II Is al
legged. and 1t has been necessary 70
lease the films elsewhere at Improbable
prices because the success or a MIN IN
the country abroad depends on us
success in New York.
The complaint alleges further that the
film teaches a strong moral lesson"
has been passed on favorably by polioe
chiefs and boards OF censors In many
cities throughout the United states. II
IL alleged that Commissioned Bell has
acted in a ''capricious. unreasonable and
arbitrary manner
An afidavit by Edelstein says his
firm worked on the scenario OF The
Frank Case for a month and employed
$50 persons. They expected to make
net profits OF at least $4,000. He says
that Commissioner Bell sent out an
order against the film as "unsatisfac-
tory" because the National Board OF
Censors In February last condemned
the picture or the ground that 1t por-
trays the story OF a criminal case now
pending In the courts
Edelstein pointed out that Justice
Whitaker. who Is to hear the presented
application, decided In a suit brought
over the presentation OF a film play
based on the Franco-Pruss!an war that
the National Board OF Censors was a
self-const!tuted body and 1t is a ques-
tlon how far a public official charged
with exercising official powers on his
wi judgment should base his action
on the opinion OF the National Board OF
Censors."
Edelsten explains hat the story as
shown on the films Is that a discharged
superintendent OF the pencil factory and
a drunken negro porter were in a con-
Sn1raCy to throw sl9nipt0n on Lao
Frank. He refers to the statement Of
Supreme Court Justice Shearn. who
went TO Atlanta to investigate the case,
that the Irresistible conclusion 10 be
reached from reviewing the record is
not only that Frank is innocent but
that the negro is guilty" Edelste!n
also says:
III IL is proper for tie press and
public to urge Franks innocence and
Conley's guilt. why is IL not proper for
US TO do so In moving pictures?"
The papers in the case were drawn
before Frank VAS lynched and no men,
ton Is made OF that fact.