official boards on motion-picture shows in the various jurisdictions of the States and of the District of Columbia. That sentiment has grown up throughout the country and has become quite pronounced.

I understand there are now motion-picture censorship boards in existence, in accordance with law, in five of the different States. New York and Massachusetts have such laws, and I think Maryland has one, and there are several other States that have them.

As Canon Chase says, the legislatures of 34 other States have had bills introduced to the same effect, and there are some half a dozen more States where the legislatures are in session now where bills are pending for the purpose of having motion-picture censorship boards to supervise the exhibition of pictures. I have introduced such a bill in Congress to apply to the District of Columbia, purely in a local way, to provide a censorship board of three officials to view privately all films before they may be exhibited to the public, and to pass upon them and to give them their approval, without which they can not be exhibited in public. So that that sentiment in favor of censorship in the various jurisdictions of motion-picture shows is growing all over the country and has obtained quite a foothold and has gained quite a substantial backing and the sentiment appears to be growing; and if not checked, if allowed to take its course, in the natural course of events I should not be surprised if in the near future the majority of the States of the United States would have censorship boards for moving-picture shows; because a great many people are demanding it, parents are demanding it and women's organizations are demanding it and a great many citizens generally are demanding it, and I believe that it is a wholesome move.

It is reported that the people who control the motion-picture industry resent that sentiment in favore of censorship; that they are resentful of it and oppose it; and it is reported that they have banded together for concerted action, and have determined to enter politics for the purpose of opposing and checkmating this growing public sentiment in favor of legislation for censorship of moving pictures; that they want to combat that public sentiment and check it and defeat all such legislation, and to have repealed such legislation as has been enacted to that effect in the different States.

While the motion-picture censorship law in New York was only enacted and put in force in New York last summer, in August, I believe

Mr. CHASE. The 1st of August.

Senator MYERS (continuing). I understand there is now a movement on foot in the New York Legislature to repeal it-that a bill has been introduced to repeal it; and it has been reported that these bills are backed by the motion-picture industry itself; and it is reported that those who control the motion-picture industry have combined for the purpose of catechising candidates for legislative offices, for election to the different State legislatures and for Congress for the purpose of ascertaining whether they favor or oppose the censorship of moving pictures; and, if they say that they favor a censorship, for the purpose of bringing to bear the combined efforts of the industry to defeat them. It is reported that they have determined to exact a pledge from all legislative candidates that they are opposed to motion-picture censorship laws; and if legislative candidates refuse to so pledge themselves that the entire combined power and great influence of the motion-picture industry will be brought to bear to defeat those candidates. Now, if those things are true, the preamble of this resolution sets forth its purpose and is self-proving. Senator ASHURST. Suppose the report were true

Senator MYERS. Yes; I will get to that in a minute. I know that is the next logical step, and I have it in mind.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. When you come to that carry in your mind, also, that, perhaps, other organizations and groups of citizens have done that same thing. Senator MYERS. Yes; but for certain purposes. I will touch on that. Senator ASHURST. Would you permit the censor to prohibit pictures carry

ing on propaganda uring import duties on cotton or lemons?
Senator MYERS. There is nothing immoral about that.

Senator ASHURST. Some people think there is; I do not.
Senator MYERS. There is nothing immoral in that."

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Pardon me; when you say there is nothing immoral in that, you would not impliedly say that there is necessarily something immoral in the activities suggested by your resolution?

Senator MYERS. Back of the activities. There is a great deal of immoral influence exerted by many motion-picture shows; and, if these people are

banded together to defeat legislative candidates who oppose it, I think it gives it an entirely different flavor from those instances where people combine for legitimate purposes. For instance, in the preamble here it says:

"Whereas at the Atlantic C.ty convention of the Motion Picture Theater Owners of America, July 7, 1921, it is reported that Marcus Loew and Adolph Zukor, two of the most influential men in the industry, pledged all the screen under their control henceforth to enter politics; and

66

Whereas it is reported that the motion-picture interests have already engaged a representative to direct a political campaign in New York before the primary and election next fall to secure the repeal of the New York motionpicture law."

And it gives a great many other allegations and statements in the nature of allegations here in this preamble which, if true, would go to show that the people who control the motion-picture industry have combined together to enter politics for the purpose of defeating all legislative candidates who favor censorship of motion pictures; and the object of this resolution is to bring about an investigation by a committee of the Senate to ascertain whether or not those reports are true, and if so, what would be proper in the premises.

As to the question that has been asked, if all of these whereases and repeated reports and allegations were true, then would it be a proper subject for investigation and legislation by Congress, I have this to say: That if it be true that large bodies of people representing large combinations of capital and hundreds of thousands of employees, representing great power of capital and numbers of people combined, and with the additional strategic power of throwing their views upon the screen before the public, are combining into one solid mass for preconcerted action to control elections and control the politics of the country, I think that is an unwholesome movement. I think it is contrary to the spirit of American traditions and principles, it is contrary to the spirit of free and untrammeled elections, the free choice of the people as to their servants, legislative, excutive and judicial, and I think it is an unwholesome spirit and movement.

However, I think that there is a general disposition amongst the public to frown upon voters being gathered together in large aggregations to have their votes cast in some one direction, in a bloc, as it were.

Now, as I say, while I think these movements are contrary to the spirit of our traditions, and the true spirit of free elections, if they are for a purpose which can not be objected to on the ground of good morals and good citizenship, if such a movement is only to promote the welfare, in some legitimate way, of some one segment of our population, all right; while I do not look upon it with much favor, there is no objection to that.

If it is merely to get some advantage in the tariff or in financial legislation, or legislation affecting this or that industry, while I do not look with favor upon those movements I do not think they are so objectionable as to require investigation, always, in Congress, or opposition in Congress.

But if back of that combined movement is an intent to vitiate and corrupt the morals of the growing generations of the American people and to undermine that which is the foundation of society and of all good citizenship, good moral character; if it is to injure the moral character and to debase and vitiate the growing generation and the people generally, and if it devoted to a debasing and demoralizing purpose, why, then I think it becomes a strictly illegitimate movement and should be investigated and overcome if legislative action can do it. Back of his reported move, if it be true at all, is the objectionable character, the immoral character, of a great many pictures thrown on the public screens in moving-picture shows. Millions of citizens object to that. I think a great many of them are decidedly immoral and vicious and debasing.

If a large number of people have combined together to go into politics in order to perpetuate that sort of thing, and to keep it untrammeled and unsuppressed, I think that is a movement which is threatening evil to the citizenship of this country, and that it should be inquired into by Congress.

If the statements in this preamble are true, then the only object this concerted movement could have would be to perpetuate the exhibition of salacious and objectionable pictures in motion-picture shows; and if that is their object, to do that, I think it ought to be inquired into. I myself am a believer in censorship of moving pictures. I think the business has grown to such a tremendous extent, that it is of such vast proportions, that the interest of the public welfare is involved, just like the interest of the public welfare is involved in

the food that people consume. Out of that, of course, grew the pure food law and regulations.

I think it is of just as must importance to regulate what is fed to the intellect and minds of the young, as it is to regulate what is fed to the stomachs of the people generally.

I do not believe that a motion-picture censorship, if conducted in a legitimate way, is in contravention of the right of free speech. We are entitled to free speech, but a man is not entitled to go out on the street and say profane, vile, and vulgar things in a public way.

Senator ASHURST. When he does that we arrest him, convict him, and subject him to severe penalties. We do not set a censorship over him to see that he does not do it, but we punish him if he does do it.

Senator MYERS. Yes; but a public nuisance may be prevented by an injunction.

Senator ASHURST. You can not restrain a newspaper from publishing. You must wait until they do publish, and then prosecute and punish.

Senator MYERS. You do not have to wait until a bawdy house is opened in a community, and then punish the people who conduct it, and then let them go on conducting it. You can stop them for infringement of the law, and it is for the public good that you do so.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Just along the line of your thought, it seems to me that it ought to be borne in mind always that the right to speak, to utter human thought by way of speech, in this country is an inherent, natural right. Senator MYERS. Yes.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. We do not speak after the license of government to speak. The right to speak is an inherent, natural right, one of those inherent, natural rights referred to, contemplated by Jefferson when he wrote the Declaration. The right to express thought by way of pen, pencil, or quill, is a natural, inherent right.

Senator MYERS. Yes, that is true.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. The right to express thought by impressing it upon a bit of white paper is a natural, inherent right. That is our conception, and that is the law of this republic, differing, as you know, so much from what was at one time held to be the law in England.

As suggested, we have the natural, inherent right to speak our thoughts and to write our thoughts with the pen, to express our thoughts by impressing them upon a bit of paper, and to circulate it. For the abuse of that right unquestionably we may be punished. We are punished by local municipal laws, State laws, in respect of slander or libel, or by State, municipal, or local laws against the uttering of obscene or indecent language. It is suggested here that there is a difference between the right to print, to publish, thought, words, ideas, and the right to exhibit pictures on screens, and our attention is called to a decision of the court wherein that distinction is drawn.

Mr. CHASE. Here is the Supreme Court decision, which I think would help your thought just at this moment. [Handing paper to Senator Shortridge.] Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes. What I wish to direct your mind to is this: When you establish a censorship, it means something or nothing.

Senator MYERS. Certainly; it means something.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. It is a regulation of a certain kind.

Senator MYERS. Yes.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. It is control of a certain thing. It is the hand of government over the subject matter, controlling it-for example, what is called moving pictures. It is claimed that there is a constitutional right in the States to exercise that control, as I understand it, and it doubtless will be argued that the Federal Government has control over it

Senator MYERS. In the District of Columbia.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. In the District of Columbia, true; and perhaps in respect of interstate traffic as well as in the District of Columbia. But whether it be municipal or State control or Federal control, it means, in the ultimate, that government. State or Federal, shall control the industry we have in mind, and shall say what pictures shall be exhibited and what pictures shall not be exhibited.

Senator MYERS. Yes.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. That is really the issue, of course.

Senator MYERS. Yes. Those things have their limitations. The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that picketing may be enjoined. Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes, if carried on in certain ways.

Senator MYERS. And picketing is in large part the expression in language of ideas, talking to others upon a man's place of business. The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that a lot of picketers can not surround a man's place of business and proceed with violent language, assault customers, and people who want to take the places of striking workmen. I dare say, if

I go to my neighbor's house and walk up and down in front of the house, or go into the house and walk around inside, in front of his family, and curse and abuse him and use violent language about him in the presence of his family, and continue it day by day, I can be enjoined from it.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Senator. Ashurst spoke of the general law as to nonenjoining the publication of a libel. The Court of Appeals of New York, as I recall it, so held along the line of the general decisions on that subject.

Senator MYERS. I have no doubt that was a sound decision.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. But there was a decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia or of Alabama, a few years ago, holding just to the contrary. Senator MYERS. Yes.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. It was there held that in a given case a court of equity would enjoin and should enjoin the publication of a confessedly libelous article, upon the theory that the damage was irreparable, that a money judgment could not compensate, that the party libeled was without complete or adequate remedy at law, and hence equity ought to intervene and enjoin the publication of the libel.

Senator MYERS. Yes. Now, the right of speech is no more natural and sacred and inalienable than the right to eat. People have a right to eat, and they have a right to purchase goods and they have the right to sell goods. They do not obtain that from a government. But if the food or drink which is to be sold is destructive to their health and detrimental to the welfare of society in general, it can be stopped, and we have our prohibition law and we have our pure food law.

Senator ASHURST. I do not want America to have to fight the long, tedious fight in behalf of a free press.

Senator MYERS. But, Senator

Senator ASHURST. I want this record straight.

Senator MYERS. Yes.

Senator ASHURST. I Would vote for a bill to make it a crime to throw on the screen improper pictures.

Senator MYERS. All moving-picture censorship laws provide for an appeal to the court. If they do not, they are not constitutional.

Now, I will hasten on, if you will pardon me, because I am trespassing now; I have overrun the time already, and I must stop.

In regard to indecent pictures, as to the right to exhibit anything that a person may please, I dare say if a man set up a factory for the purpose of manufacturing and sending out through the mails, or circulating otherwise, indecent pisctures, nude pictures, and was engaged in that business and continuing in it and threatening to continue in it, he could be enjoined; I dare say he could be enjoined just as a common nuisance can be enjoined.

There are motion-picture censorship laws in quite a number of States now, providing always for appeals to the courts, and I do not know of any of them that have been declared unconstitutional; and until they have been declared unconstitutional I shall adhere to my belief that within reasonable, prudent limits, they are a good thing, and there is a necessity for them. I would favor a censorship by more than one man.

There is a bill introduced in the District for censorship, patterned after the Massachusetts law, which is in force now and has not been overruled that I know of. It provides for a board of three people, and that they shall view all pictures privately before they are exhibited, and if they are not contrary to morals, and if they are not detrimental to the morals of the public, then they are to approve them, and they may be shown. If they consider them detrimental to morals, indecent or obscene or unfit to be seen or shown, then they must so report, and they can not be exhibited. I believe that is a good law, a reasonable law, and if these whereases in the preamble are true, the people who are indulging in these things are doing so for the purpose of combating those censorship laws, for the purpose of combating a movement that is in favor of good morals and good citizenship.

I just want to say this at the end. I am not a foe of moving pictures, at all. I am not hostile to them. I have no antipathy to them. I have no fight against

the moving-picture business. To the contrary, I realize that the motion-picture business is a great industry, involving the investment of millions of dollars of capital and the employment of hundreds of thousands of employees, and that it has grown to vast proportions, and that it is capable of inestimable good from an educational standpoint. Also, it is a form of cheap diversion for millions of people who can not afford any other diversion or amusement, and if it is necessary it should be encouraged. By it young children and young people and others can go and have a cheap form of convenient recreation and pleasure and diversion. And is it not all pleasure. It may be made highly educational. People in the country may see pictures exhibited of the skyscrapers in the cities; and people who have never been out of a city may see exhibited scenes in the country.

People who live in the country may see the busiest and most crowded places in the city, and people in the cities can see scenes of country life, exhibiting all the beauties of nature. People who never saw a ship can see ships loaded and and unloaded, can see what is going on daily at the docks of the country. People in one country can see what is going on in other countries, in foreign lands. Everybody can have the greatest plays ever written reproduced right before them. The motion-picture industry is a great industry, and it possesses potentialities of benefit, of education and enlightenment, that are simply inestimable to the American people. I think it is one of the greatest factors of education and enlightenment, of uplifting information and recreation and diversion that has ever dawned upon the world; or at least, it could be made so if devoted to proper and legitimate purposes. But if devoted to debasing purposes, it can be made just as harmful as it can be beneficial. It is just as capable of doing evil as it is of doing good; and I believe the present tendency is to make it harmful instead of beneficial; and I believe that reasonably prudent, moderate, censorship laws, subject to appeal to the courts, would have a highly beneficial and improving effect upon the motion-picture business, and make it still more improving and beneficial to people than it now is. And if the people who are in control of it are, as alleged, bent upon conducting it upon a low plane and appealing to the debasing instincts of the people, and are bent upon entering politics for that purpose, then I think it is a legitimate subject of investigation.

Of course this is merely a preliminary investigation to determine, to recommend to the Senate whether or not this resolution should be adopted; and to day we are largely in the attitude of people who are conducting a preliminary examination.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Yes, we so understand.

Senator MYERS. We really have to make out a prima facie case, that is all; and if the resolution should be adopted by the Senate, then all sides should be invited to come and be heard, the motion-picture industry and people for and against it, and every phase of it should be considered. But this is a preliminary inquiry, of course, a preliminary examination to make out a prima facie

case.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. It would be fair, however, would it not, for the committee to listen to others, contrary-minded?

Senator MEYERS. Yes, I think so; and if anybody wants to be heard in opposition, they ought to be heard. I thoroughly agree that you ought to hear all sides of the matter and give it thorough consideration from all aspects. I do not think there should be anything ex parte and one sided about it. You should conduct even this preliminary examination from a broad-minded standpoint. Senator SHORTRIDGE. Would you extend that very beneficent feature to the censor, so that before the censor decided as to a picture, all sides could be heard? Senator MYERS. Yes; I would favor letting the people appear and argue as to whether the picture should be shown.

Senator ASHURST. All right; then why could not a jury view each picture; the picture could tell its own story, the jury would say: "This is an indecent picture, and we will send this man to the penitentiary?"

Senator MYERS. A censorship board sits largely in the capacity of a jury. There is always an appeal to a court.

Senator ASHURST. A jury could view a picture, the picture would be the best evidence and they could pass upon the question whether a man had exhibited an indecent picture.

Senator SHORTRIDGE. Of course, those who favor this inquiry and a censorship desire that there be a preliminary passing upon a picture before it is exhibited?

Senator MYERS. Yes.