bill is the panacea that they have been seeking. One of Brooklyn's leading men urged us not to waste time trying to explain the bill, but just to urge our audiences to telegraph their support. Too many have supported it who have not understood its provisions.

In summary, the council's reasons for opposing the Neely bill insofar as its passage will affect the community are briefly:

(a) It will curtail the production of the finer, aesthetic, and artistic film. It is a matter of statistics that such films do not pay, unless they are included in a block and their cost offset by the profit from the more popular films.

Without these finer films, community groups cannot hope to build up public taste.

(b) The required synopsis is impractical, will tend to hold creative art down to mediocrity, and lead to infinite litigation.

(c) It will increase production costs. Many of our theaters are even now operating half full. With increased film rentals they must seek films allocated to still lower levels.

(d) Admission costs will necessarily be raised to meet increased costs. Families on low budgets cannot meet increased admissions. They will either have to curtail their entertainment, or seek it at cheaper houses.

(e) It will mean the abandonment of the production code. The council is convinced that there is a very definite desire on the part of the major producers to develop the motion picture as an art form. This has been demonstrated by the production of high-class films, although experience has proven that they will not pay.

It is further evidenced by the development of a production code, dealing with the ethical handling of story content, advertising, and so forth. All affiliated theaters require, and many independents seek, the production code seal as a guarantee of their ethical or moral standards. The abandonment of the production code would be disastrous to all better film groups.

(f) It would give rise to a larger number of independent producers. Experience has proved that it is the film produced by the small independent producer who is controlled by no regulatory code of ethics, which most frequently offends public taste, or comes in conflict with one or more State censor boards. It is admitted by the proponents of the bill that there is nothing in it to control the moral content of a film.

(9) It would take away the cancelation clause in exhibitor contracts, whereby 10 percent of the films contracted for may be canceled, if found to be objectionable to a given community.

(h) It would tend toward Government control, and possible censorship of films.

Mr. Chairman, the Motion Picture Council for Brooklyn urges your rejection of this bill. I thank you.

STATEMENT OF MRS. EDMUND M. BARSHAM, WILMINGTON, DEL.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Barsham.

Mrs. BARSHAM. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, for the record, my name is Mrs. Edmund M. Barsham, 2503 Madison Street, Wilmington, Del., representing Wilmington City Federation of Women's Clubs and allied organizations-60 member groupsand the Wilmington Better Films Council-to which delegates from

30 groups are sent-both of which after a study of 1 month after presentation of the Neely bill have taken action opposing it.

Also I represent the Delaware State Federation of Women's Clubs43 member groups-which has not endorsed the bill since its national head, the General Federation of Women's Clubs, the largest women's organization in the United States, which studies situations carefully, has not endorsed it.

It is my opinion that endorsement of legislative measures by national organizations upon the "say so" of given individuals and without sufficient study of the bill, often works in the end as a boomerang, and I am glad this mistake was not made by the General Federation of Women's Clubs. It did not endorse the Neely bill. Why I am opposed to the Neely bill:

First, I believe the bill to be misleading to the general public, since it is being promoted as a method of bettering motion pictures, and I believe the bill is unjust discrimination against a single industry. The Neely bill has to do with a sales method, and a sales method alone, which in no way affects the quality content of motion pictures, which is the greatest concern of the public. I have yet to find a single individual who honestly makes the claim that a sales method has a thing in the world to do with the quality of any product.

Second, I am against the bill because of its method of promotion to the public which in my opinion is entirely misleading. The general public knows nothing about pictures excepting what it desires to attend as entertainment, and cares less. If the bill is good, why is it not promoted on its merits, sending copies of the bill for study, instead of the nonstudying public being harangued to write to this or that person, urging support of the bill? Why not urge study of the bill, leaving the individual to exercise his own opinion in writing others to support or oppose it?

But this is not the method used. The public must write, write, and continue to write, and that without delay, urging passage of the bill. It appears that it would be just too bad to wait for sufficient study of the bill in order to form an honest opinion, so individuals and groups could decide for themselves, but instead they are exhorted to urge passage of the bill at once.

As a lever to securing wholesale endorsement from people, who have not and will not study the bill, the phrase "community freedom in the choice of films" is used as a promotion slogan.

I am quite sure that those familiar with community contact work with exhibitors will agree with me that community freedom in the choice of films will be no way be affected by the passage of the Neely bill. If the bill were passed, it is my opinion that exhibitors would select, as they do now, whatever pictures were offered them, which in their opinion would bring the best box-office receipts, and the community freedom then, as now, would be limited to the attendance of the public to the picture entertainment which it the most enjoys. Exhibitors now have a wide selection of films from which to choose. I have the bookings and cancelations of an independent exhibitor for the past year. He choose his bookings from 10 production corporations' products, 6 from the larger corporations and 4 from smaller ones. His contracts were with Fox, Paramount, Warner, United Artists, Universal, Columbia; and he also used pictures from Vitagraph, RKÓ, Monogram, and Republic.

Other independents do the same, and no other group of exhibitors have any wider choice of selection.

I cannot believe that exhibitors would, were the bill passed, be any more receptive to community freedom in selection of films than they now are. My experience after 15 years in contacting exhibitors, has been most friendly, and we cooperate to get the best possible for the community and the exhibitor. The Neely bill is not needed to bring about this result-that fact is already established, and if it were not, I see nothing in the Neely bill which would help to bring it about.

It is well to remember that no all-wise individual or group of all-wise individuals can succeed in the attempt to control community choice of films. In my opinion, it just can't be done. Exertion of influence for clean entertainment, yes; but dictation of choice, no.

Third, I am opposed to the Neely bill because I believe that if block booking were abolished the community worker contacting an unscrupulous exhibitor would lose the strongest weapon which can be used with such an exhibitor. My experience has led me to believe that the type of exhibitor who wants to be released from block booking, or wholesale leasing, wishes that release because he desires the freedom to use boot-leg and highly objectionable pictures which he cannot obtain in the block booking system.

A list of 30 questionable pictures is made a part of this material, not one of which could have been leased in blocks, and which were shown extensively until stopped by educational campaigns against pictures not properly endorsed. A study of picture cancelations from blocks by exhibitors will show that more pictures known as the higher types were canceled than those which are sensational.

Purchasing in blocks by the exhibitor is in a way a safeguard to the public, since with the cancelation privilege of 10 percent, and often as high as 20 percent, including washouts and other media, there is no excuse whatever for showing an objectionable film. Personally, I want the block booking retained, or something similar put in its place. so that the strong weapon now available against objectionable picture quality shall still be available.

Fourth, I am opposed to the bill because I believe the term “blind selling" is fantastic, and I believe exhibitors do have sufficient advance knowledge concerning a picture-its general character-the roles to be taken by the leading actors, and have enough advance information to have an intelligent opinion as to whether or not they wish to lease the picture. To satisfy myself of this fact I copied from one synopsis accompanying an exhibitor's contract. I have used this before. It is the one accompanying the picture John Paul Jones, and I quote:

James Cagney-The story of John Paul Jones; the stranger-than-fiction biography of the Scotch pirate who became the "Father of the American Navy." Mighty armadas, great sea battles, tender romance produced on a scale in keeping with the spectacular setting-picture Cagney as that fiery scourge of the seas whose daring conquest led America through the stormiest naval encounters of the Revolutionary War.

I chose this particular synopsis for study after I had heard an exhibitor say he had no knowledge in advance when he leased that picture of what it would be like, or even what role Cagney would play in the picture.

I am certain that exhibitors do have sufficient synopsis of pictures they lease in blocks, and the reason for that belief is founded upon

the fact that I have been consulted by exhibitors concerning certain pictures, using the accompanying synopsis to their contracts.

In any event, if in doubt, the exhibitor always has recourse to previews before showing the picture, and can cancel it if he does not approve it. As I see it, pictures are no more sold blind than are newspapers, magazines, book clubs, and many similar products to which so many subscribe in advance. In fact, the exhibitors have much more advance information than do any of those here mentioned.

I see no reason for Federal discrimination against the motion-picture industry as compared with other transactions of the same class.

Fifth, I am opposed to the bill for the further reason that I am unable to find any unanimity of desire upon the part of exhibitors for the Neely bill. In conversation a few days ago with the president of the exhibitors' association of my own State and an adjoining State, he told me his association was entirely inactive for the bill. I have heard similar expressions from other groups.

The independent exhibitors in my city, five of them, are very prosperous, owning one or more theaters, owning their own homes, wearing huge diamonds and taking expensive vacation trips whenever they desire. They have no hard luck stories and are not pitying themselves, although our town is not a particularly good movie town. I realize, of course, that not all exhibitors are good businessmen, neither are all men in other kinds of endeavors.

Sixth, I am opposed to the bill because I believe that were it passed there would be an increase to the public in the price of admission to motion-picture entertainment, and that it would cause an increase in unemployment.

I have been inspired with confidence in my opposition of this bill as herewith set forth, and as set forth by me at former times, because of the opinion expressed in the "minority views" of Senators Smith, White, and Gurney, as follows, and I quote:

It is our opinion that this bill, as a control over the licensing of motion pictures, is not necessary. Our judgment is that no injury to the commerce of the United States in the licensing and distribution of motion pictures warrants legislation that will result in radically altering a system that has proven to be economical and practical to all three branches of the industry.

We are of the opinion that the enactment of this bill into law would result in decrease of employment both in production and distribution and an increase in cost to the theater owner and the public.

I have for filing a list of objectionable pictures, which cannot be bought in block, which I would like to file as a part of my statement for the record.

The CHAIRMAN. You may do that.

(The list referred to follows:)

The following list of pictures are called questionable: Ecstasy, Children of Loneliness, Assassin of Youth (Marijuana), Gambling with Souls, Crusade Against Rackets, Love Life of a Gorilla, Guilty Parents, Club Des Femmes, Damaged Goods, Damaged Lives, Sex Maniac, Sex Madness, How to Undress Before Your Husband, Unashamed, Elysia, Forbidden, Lucretia Borgia, Body Beautiful, Slaves in Bondage, Race Suicide, Shame, The Lash, Strange Lovers, Seventh Commandment, The Pace That Kills, Smashing the Vice Trust, Sins of Love Girls for Sale, Motherhood, Uncivilized.

STATEMENT OF MRS. FRED STEPHENSON, SPRINGFIELD, MASS.

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Stephenson.

Mrs. STEPHENSON. Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is Mrs. Fred Stephenson, of Springfield, Mass.

I am here representing the Springfield Motion Picture Council, & group of some 26 women's organizations, representing a total of some 8,000 women. During the past year the Springfield Motion Picture Council has made a careful study of the pros and cons of the Neely bill and has come to the conclusion that it is opposed to the bill.

I wish I had an opportunity to tell you something about the Motion Picture Council's work along educational lines of motion picture appreciation, but I just heard the radio announce that Paris was being bombed, and I do not think I should take up the committee's time. I ask permission to file my statement in writing for the record. The CHAIRMAN. You may do so.

(The statement referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF MRS. FRED STEPHENSON, PAST CHAIRMAN OF THE SPRINGFIELD MOTION PICTURE COUNCIL

Mr. Chairman and Members of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, I am Mrs. Fred Stephenson of Springfield, Mass. For.purposes of identification may I state that I am a past chairman of the Springfield Motion Picture Council, a present member of the Springfield Board of Education and for the past 6 years have been actively engaged in motion picture work from the standpoint of community service.

My purpose in coming here is twofold-first to explain briefly to you some of the activities which the council has undertaken in an attempt to educate the general public concerning current and forthcoming pictures and secondly to tell you the experience of this group in conducting a thorough and exhaustive study of the Neely bill during this past year.

The Springfield Council has a membership of 126 women, each a delegate from some group or organization of greater Springfield-representing a combined total of over 8,000 women. A part of each meeting is devoted to discussion of films then playing or soon to be shown and each member is expected to take back to her individual group the high lights and points brought forth. Many pictures are previewed several days or a week before they are to open and thus an opportunity is provided the exhibitor to determine audience reaction as the council definitely represents a cross section of the community, every race and creed being represented. In turn information concerning the picture, its artistic value, the issues involved in the story, etc.-all these are carried back to the large constituent group of women.

Each Sunday a list is published in our local paper classifying pictures as to age suitability. This service has proved to be unusually successful and it is a source of great satisfaction to see these lists posted on bulletin boards in libraries, schools, churches, etc.

This fall the council is inaugurating a weekly radio broadcast over one of our local stations.

We encourage motion picture appreciation work not only in the schools, Young Women's Christian Association, Youth Council, Works Project Administration recreation centers, etc., but also urge that study groups be formed within our adult organizations. At present there are about 20 such groups actively engaged in study and discussion of the technical, artistic, aesthetic, educational, moral and social values of motion pictures.

May I state here that a motion picture council has a very definite and oftimes discouarging task of instilling and gradually building up in the minds of the public higher standards of appreciation and a desire for the best in motion pictures. We are not a censoring board in any sense of the word. We try to cooperate with the exhibitors and through a mutual understanding of each others problem we have been able to accomplish far more than at one time seemed possible. We firmly believe that public opinion, not of a minority group but of the great masses of the whole, will be the only factor which will ever result in any appreciable change in the type of pictures shown.