New Britain herald., 1925-08-28
MOVIE MEN WANT
 COURT RE,HEARING
Distributors Ask Three Judges
 to Act on Case Again

New Haven, Conn, Aug 7S HN-- Distributors of motion picture filns who are opposing the new state uinl tax and censorship law, recently held as constitutional by three federal judges filed a petition with the cler, of the United States court here ask ing for rehearing before thc three judges who gave their opinion on the act last month. The petition asks for a rchearnE, rcarEmn"nt and leave 10 amend complaint
 The petition for n rchcaring is based on three points--th1' 1ho court decided that the act primarily was a police power measure while it is claimed by the distributors that the amount of money received over and above the cost of administering the act shows that 1t is a revenue measure; the name Of the act which reads "an act providing for the imposition of tax on films from which motion pictures are to be eX- hibited; no inspection or eXaminu- ton provision Is provided for the censorship.
 The new legal move-the filing Of the petition-will. 1t is understood, have no appreciable effect on the present situation in which distribu- whereby the tax on films can be paid after the film exchanges have been removed from this state.
 Tn view of the fact that the feder- al judges in their finding decided the constitutionallty of the act as po- lice power measure the new petition ayers that 1t "becomes necessary for the court to determine the constitu- tionality of the said act of Connecu- cut, as a revenue or tax measure"
 A reconsideration of the courts decision which holds that the charge imposed by the statute does not directly and substantially burden in- terstate comm cree carried on by the plaintiffs, is also asked.
 Tn the prayer to amend the origin al complaint, the plaintiffs say that the court ordered the original bills ul6uIlcGNus "hClIuEo llo bicNiSAA bSi this had been made by the counsel for the state. The first hearing was on the motion for a preliminary in- junction, 1t was pointed out, to which the state had filed an answer.
 The particular amendment which it is sought to be maCo ayers that the state would collect about s125,- 900 a year on the tax, whereas the cost of administration would not be in excess of S15,000. This shows that the act Is a revenue measure, the opinion holds.
 The petition for rehearing Is ad- dressed to Judge Henry Wade Rog- CTS of the circuit court and Judges Henry W. Goddard and Thomas D. Thatcher of the district court of New York. which constituted the special court which decided the con stitutionality of the state act, Pett- tous were filed in behalf of the Foy Film corporation of New York by Saul K. Rogers vice president, and the American Feature Film Co.,, Inc, oi Boston by Maurice Tobey, treas urcr, These companies were ,he cnmplainants in the original pro- reedings. The petitions were draw'h mp by George ". Wickersham, former United States attorney gen oral, and Edwin P. Grosvenor, New York lawyers, and Attorney Benedict M. Holden of Hartford.
 IL Is pointed out in the petition that "no duty of inspection or eN- animation of the films pror to their exhibition. or at any other time, te imposed upon the commlssiOner,' and that In this respect the act diff fers from all other censorship a"ts of other state referred 10 in the opinion of the court.
 That the amount collected iq tax is further pointed out in the lau. guage of the act, which says the amount Of such tax, including the fee for registration of each suCh reel of films or copy thereof of one thou- sand feet or less, shall h" t"n do. lars"