The New York herald., 1921-12-18

The English censorship has long been
source of irritation to the London managers.
It has kept from the stage not only plays
that were supposed to be prurient in char
acter but others that were banned for no
reasons connected with their morality. Ber-
nard Shaw said the censorship only con-
demned what it considered frivolous i'm
morality and made little or no effort to put
an end to the kind of farce which has
attracted the attention of the police this
year. But there have been certain French
farces that for years were kept off the Lon-
don stage as well such serious plays as
Camille" which were only admitted after
radical revision even if there was nothing
more drastic than the version of Dumass
drama which Henry James once saw in
Boston in which the hero and heroine were
vaguely referred to as engaged"
Religious and Diplomatic Reasons
Factors in English Censorship
Only a few weeks ago Mecca" which
was acted here at the Century Theatre,
was prohibited in London because the name
had a religious meaning TO many British
subjects. After it was changed to Cairo"
the spectacle was shown. The visit of a Ger
tain Japanese potentate one summer caused
the abandonment of a projected production
of "The Mikado" on the ground that it might
oil end the V1SltOrS. InuS nave ulplOUldllC,
and especially religious, considerations often
inspired the actions of the London censor.
It was only in recent years that the produc
ton Of Saint-Saens's Samson and Dalilah'
was permitted The opera was founded on
Biblical subject, and that was enough in a
country with an Established Church.
No such questions will vex the American
theatre manager. But he will have to en-
counter an outside influence in his business
to which he is bitterly opposed 1t may be
for that reason that there is almost complete
unanimity in his opposition to censorship.
The most important of the managers have
expressed their opinions for THE New YORK
HERALD. The actor in E. II. Sothern and the
playgoer in Paul Cravath have also added
their views.
A. L, Erlanger and David Belasco, while
uniting In their opposition, have expressed
their opinions in few words. Mr.. Belasco
says:
",rhe public has always regulated, and al
ways will regulate. the theatre in America.
The success or failure of a play is in their
hands They are the great jury, whose ver-
dict is always just"
Mr.. Erlanger seems inclined to hold the
authors responsible. He says:
''The theatre does not need a censorship.
What it does need is authors who can write
successful plays without depending on inde-
cencies for their climaxes."
Marc Klaw and Lee Shubert are equally
opposed to such a manner of dealing with
the morality of plays. Mr.. BSlaw said:
II am unalterably and unequivocally op-
posed to censorship Of pictures, drama or
newspapers in this country. We have
enough laws on the statute books to pro-
tect the people from danger from either oil
these sources, and IL they are not properly
enforced that is the fault of the officials
rather than the laws. There is too much dele
gated authority already in America. Few
people for whom we have the privilege of
voting exercise any real authority over us
at present. 1t is usually delegated to some
society or some individual who uses it for
the purposes of self-exploitation
Joins in Belief That Public
Is Best Censor in the End
"The drama in America has struggled
along pretty we'll and remained pretty clean
as a rule: and when public sentiment is
strong enough to turn its back upon unclean
plays they will fail, and without public sem
tt,nx or1x nartiallv enforce