The Birmingham age-herald. [volume] (Birmingham, Ala.) 1902-1950, 1918-02-09


the operators will prepare petition with
| the necessary 1900 names attached. ask
| ing the city commission to call a ref
erendum vote upon the question. and this
will settle a matter that has been a
thorn in the side of the city fathers for
many moons.
Commissioner j. Ellis Brown, acct
dentally stumbled on the flaw in the city
code that eliminates the Sunday opera
ton of moving picture shows by calling
upon the city attorney for all Informal
ton anent the question. Mr.. Brown was
sitting in his office attending to the
rushed the city attorney, who, in ex-
cited tones, exclaimed:
Ellis. the law allowing motion picture
shows to operate on Sunday has been re-
pealed. They are now operating illegal
ly. | have just discovered that in codi-
flying the city laws that the person who
Transcribed ordnance No. Soc, which
was an amendment to section 1890 of the
city code, adopted on December %,
1915 left out the last two lines; 1t shall
not be unlawful to operate high grade
llONlH6 picture SHOWS OIL SUNDAY ana
thereby made it illegal to keep open pic
ture shows on the Sabbath"
Commissioner Brown turned to- the
section in his copy of the city code, and
the two lines were missing.
Thereby hangs the tale
City Recorder IL. l.. Anderton was APP
pointed by the city commission to codify
the city laws, and when his work was
completed he presented the new code to
the city commission, and that body. on
September IS, 1917. by the passage of ordi-
nance 5o5-C, adopted the new code, which
act thereby repealed all acts Heretofore
passed by the city commission not in
Guided in the code as approved
City Attorney Ullmans letter to Com
missioner Brown, in which he states the
case clearly, is as follows:
MR.. ULLMAN'S LETTER
February s, 1915
Hon. j. Ellis Brown, Commissioner of
Public Utilities. Building
Dear Sir: Your favor of the Sth in
slant requesting my opinion in regard to
Sunday moving pictures is received.
On December 20, 1875 the commission
adopted ordinance No. S36-C, which was
all amendment To SECTION IutU Oh the city
code. The last paragraph Of that ordi-
nance provides as follows:
1t shall not be unlawful to operate high
grade moving picture shows on Sunday.
i do not find that this provision of
ordinance No. $3.50 was carried forward
into the code, Section 1890 of the old
code appears as amended in section 1850
Of the new code, but by some chance
or mistake, the provisions of ordinance
g~f, ,aia
Sunday, seems to have been left out This
was only discovered by me today. The
state law (acts of 1915, p. 525, section ll0)
fixes the license on moving picture
shows in cities of more than 10000 In
habitants at $3.50 Estate and county,. and
contains this provision: Provided that
wherever municipal authorities author
ize them to operate on Sunday, the IL
cense Estate and county, shall be double
the amount hereinabove set OUT
only quote this provision to show that
the city has the authority to permit NOV
ing picture shows to operate on Sunday.
SOLUTION TO TANGLE
In response to your question: In case
the commission adopts an ordinance clos
Ing the moving picture theatres on Sun
day, in what way can this matter be
submitted to the people? VIII it be by
referendum or initiative?" / beg to adj
wise that under the provision Of the Ave
commissioner bill. If the commission
should adopt an ordinance closing the
moving picture shows, the only way that
the matter could be voted on by the peo-
pie would be for those in favor of open
ing the picture shows to present an ordi-
nance repeating the ordinance closing
the moving picture shows and re-enact-
ing the proviso of ordinance No. $3.50
to the effect that 1T shall not be I'M
talk cnnpra fllla Ting tho com