Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1920-11-17
RENEW
FILM CENSOR FIGHT
Drs. Grammer and TwombIy De-
mand Governor Explain
OberhoItzer's Demotion

The Rev. DR.. Carl r. Grammer, rec
tor of st. Stephens Episcopal Church,
of this city, and the Rev.. Clifford G.
Twombly, rector of st. James Church,
Lancaster, again demanded today an
explanation from Governor Sproul for
removing DIR. Ellis =. Oberholtzer from
a voting. position on the Pennsylvania
Board of Moving Picture Censors.
They characterized as "camouflage'
the appointment of DIR. Oberholtzer TO
the voiceless position of "director,"
since, they said he is the one who will
be directed by the voting MEMBERS
The open letter." headed "Will
Governor Sproul Explain" in part
reads as follows:
'lnasmuch as no explanation has
yet been given by Governor Sproul of
his removal OF DIR. Ellis =. Oberholtzer
from the Board of Censors of Moving
Pictures, we, the undersigned, citizens
Of Pennsylvania, who have given spe-
cial study to the work of the Board or
Censors and to the moving picture sit
uation, feel it our duty to the public
welfare to bring home to the Governor
the necessity Of some explanation, il
he is to retain the confidence of many
who have put their trust in him.
Our separate communications to the
press have received no real answer,
for vague expressions of pride in the
board and interest in its work amount
to nothing. A weighty and temperate
editorial in the PUBLIC LEDGER, point =
ing out the propriety of some explana-
tiOn has also been ignored. We have,
therefore, decided in joint communi
cation to lay the issue before the pub
lie. Perhaps the Governor may yet give
us a reasoned reply.
Assert Training Is Needed
"That he may know just what we
wish him to explain, we shall put our
questions to him plainly. First. how
is the removal of Di. Ubcrholtzer FOR
the good of the service? We wish it
to be noted that, in spite of his high
sounding title of director. DR.. Obcr-
holtzer has been denoted. lie has lost
his vote upon the rejection or modit-
cation of films. How can it be for the
benefit Of such a bureau. that an cx-
-pcricnccd and skillful official should
be superseded by novice? In one of
his explanations of the workings Of
the Board of Ccnsors. DIR. OberhOltzer
has laid 1t down, as well established.
virtually worthless to the state. Skill
comes only, with time served at the
workbench And here we have an
official Of long standing superseded by
such an apprentice Certainly 1t
calls for some explanation, if public
offices are to be regarded as public
trusts. to be filed with a view to the
best interests of the people.
"Dr. Oberholtzer, by his articles in
the reviews and by his position on this
board has become the chief authority in
the land on censoring films. How can
Governor Sproul justify the removal of
such man from power and his demo
tiOn to an inferior place?
This brings us to our second ques-
tion. Governor SprOul emphatically
denies that the moving picture interests
have had anything to do with the ap-
pointment of Henry Starr Richardson 4:
but that denial does not reach the point
at issue, which is the removal of DR..
Oberholtzer. We ask Governor Sproul
to explain the relations of these inter
ests to that demotion. We believe that
they stand in a close relation from the
following circumstances:
Shortly before the time for the re :
appointment of a secretary of the board
of censors on May !, 1920, Governor
Sproul emphatically assured one of us
Or. Twombly)i in the presence of q
third party that DIR. Oberholtzer would
be reappointed. Later on he wrote in
a letter-a copy of which lies before
usZ-that he expected to appoint DR..
Oberholtzer, although there was great
opposition to him from the moving
picture interests, but probably he
added, this is a good Endorsement
''Can it be that the moving picture
people yet had To be heard? In any
event they had their hearing on May
3. 1920. after the time for DIR. Ober-
holtzer's reappointment was due. when
a committee representing the moving
picture interests waited on the Cover
nor and urged change in the standards
of censorship. The members of the
committee were Daniel Frohman,
David w. Griffith and A. Leo Fcist,
all of New York. and Morris Wolf, Of
Philadelphia. The reappointment was
deferred still longer. and now after n
sufficient time has elapsed twas it to
disconnect the Governors action from
that significant visit?) DR.. Oberholtzer
loses his power to check and curb these
manufacturers and is retired from the
board. and the Governor roundy
asserts that the moving picture inter-
ests had nothing whatever to do with
the change in the board or with the
appointment of Mr.. Richardson.
"All that we can ascertain about
Mr.. Richardson indicates that he has
no special qualifications for the post
n In tfnfn 80.