"MOTHERING" AMERICANS.

Dunstan Times, Issue 3142, 6 November 1922, Page 2

"MOTHERING" AMERICANS.

CKNSOBS EVERYWHEKE. Fear of censorship by law has produced a new and interesting movement in American life, a movement tending to supervision from within of important industries, arts and sports by one man or a small group of men whoso whose reputation for moral unrighteousness is so great that it can forestall the dreaded interference. Since 1920 so-called "potentates" have been elevated to high position in baseball, the cinema and the theatre. The Society of Restaurateurs is the latest to enter the field and declare that the restaurant owners of America need a man to save them from the modern passion of government regulation of quasi-public undertakings. "We need him." says Mr Paul Henkel. owners of a famous New York chop house, and leading member of the society, "and our need is great. The restaurants have been regulated by national. State and private agencies for more years than I care to think of. . What the restaurant business needs is a shock absorber, some big man who will be a point of contact between the harassed restaurant owner and the agencies which harass him. It is a long leap from restaurants to literature, but the censorship from within the movement seemes destined to affect even this latter branch of activity. The society for the suppression of vice a fortnight ago asked the publishers of the United States to submit all manuscripts to a committee composed of writers, the public, the publishers and members of the society—this committee to be beaded by w responsible man of affairs—to pass judgment on all manuscripts before publication. Recently the society intensified its activities against the dissemination of well-known classics because they "tend to lower the moral tastes of the people." Publishers' book shelves have been raided, copies of Rabelais, Baudelaire, Scnnitzler, Anatole France, Balzac, and others have been seized, and tlio publishers haled before the courts. In many cases fines have been imposed, in other cases the society has lost. A publishing house anxious to determine whether it can hold the society responsible for damages in instances where the latter failed to secure a conviction, brought a suit through one of its clerks against the society and gained a judgment for 2500 dollars, on the ground that the prosecution was begun without reasonable cause. This heartened the publishers, who now see some recourse' from the attacks of this established organisation for. the suppression of vice. The society, apparently anxious to avoid counter-suits, has suggested, the for mof voluntary censorship already mentioned. Some, publishers accepted the idea, but the National Association of Book Publishers as a whole and the authors placed themselves in violent opposition. One publisher expressed himself as follows: —"To organise a censorship committee, presided over by some Pooh Bah of literature, which would' decide upon the advisability of publishing a manuscript, would, to my mind, sound the death kneil of literature. I for one would not submit one mamusciript to such a committee, and. from conversations that 1 have recently had, know no intelligent publisher would." But the inevitability of ai central censorship from within the publishers' organisation itself, much as 1 it might be opposed! to outside regulation as now provided for by the Society for the Suppression of Vice, was clearly indicated by the same man in his next words "I said two years' ago," he continued, "and say now, that instead of the tremendous expense of money, time, and energy, and the notoriety that attends all cases of censorship (in the courts), as we have seen them'to date, these cases might better be brought before a committee (chosen by the publishers). I realise, of course, that the decision of even such a committee as I suggested two years ago might be entirely unfair to the fine work of a fine writer. But rather than submit to the stupid persecutions and indignities of to-day's procedures, the vote of such a. committee would, I think, be accepted' by most publishers." How bitterly the writers object to the society's plan of censorship is indicated in a letter written, to the publishers bv an American author. W. J. Duncan. He wrote:—"May I say that I heartily approve of the proposal of the Society for the Suppression of Vice to .censor all new literature appearing in the United States? Any movement to deprive us of our individual judgment has my sincere sympathy. The growing tendency of the public: to accede- to supervision, to acknowledge that they are incapable of thinking for themselves; to confess, in a word, that they are imbeciles, marks a great step forward in America. The time is coming, and I trust soon, when we as a people will see the wisdom of surrendering our absurd right to vote to one great overlord or dictator, and then our felicity will be complete." The genesis of the movement toward one-man or committee censorship from within goes* back to the prohibition of intoxicating liquors. The brewers and distillers of America claim that the prohibition movement succeeded because they organised too late to remove the abuses current in the liquor traffic. Only after the Prohibition Amendment had' been passed! through Congress, the liquor people declare, did they waie up to tlie situation. Then their cause was lost, for they did not have sufficient time for centralised reform from within. The, united countermovement to prohibition they had! begun was too weak to prove effective against the reformers, who had gained strength and momentum during the years of their Yong evrmpvi\gy\. I'TOfcfcsaoual bataebaLU it is said, saw a lesson in the mistakes of the liquor people. This sport, the most, popular in America, has had) a stormy career ever since it* inception here in the early seventies of last century. There have been bitter lights among the various clubs, and attempts at organisation have been only partly successful. Public sympathy has been alienated by proved charges of dishonesty against, players, and various revelations showing that professional baseball is a business organised for profit rather than a sport. In May of 1920 the baseball-following public was electrified by the news that wholesale fraud had been proved in the playing of the important "world series" of 1917. A group of players in the contest between the Chicago' and Detroit clubs of the two major leagues had connived with professional gamblers to defeat their own team, sharing the rich harvest ol the gamblers, who had fleeced thousands of unsuspecting baseball enthus--asts. Tt was the most damaging setback in the history of the sport. Five months later the board of control of all the large professional baseball club owners 1 announced that they had appointed K. M. Landis. judge of the United States District Court of Illinois since 1905, as supreme arbiter in all baseball matters, at an annual salary of 50,000 dollars. His word was to be law, and his power unlimited. It was the'first instance of one-man censorship from within in any modern American quasi-public enterprise. _ Judge Landis, a. man of enviable reputation, is nationally known as a baseball enthusiast and an exponent of de-

cisiveness. in legal procedure. That he is determined to live up to his reputation for fair play and no favorites was illustrated last spring, when he suspended for live weeks the highest paid and most popular baseball player, "Babe" Ruth, for violating a technical league ruling, which forbids players to go on "barnstorming" tours at the end of the regular season. There was na-tion-wide protest again.-t the suspension of this player, whose "home runs" were widely heralded events in the daily sport happenings; and since 'Ruth received some 500 dollars for each home run he made, it was a hard pill for the "slugger" to swallow: but the judge was adamant, and the suspension held It was a good thing for baiseball; and the continuation of .Judge Landis is the most reassuring thing for the future of the sport. The second and perhaps most commanding figure to be elevated to a .place of supreme dictation in an important industry and art was Will H. Hays, who up to March of this year was Postmaster-General in President Harding's Cabinet. Mr Hays had been chosen for the latter post after successfully conducting Mr Harding's campaign for the Presidency, and gaining for himself a reputation for business efficiency and impeccable moral conduct. As head of the American Post Office he added to his laurels by introducing much needed reforms in the mail system. He resigned the PostmasterGeneralship with its annual stipend of 12,500 dollars, to become chief of the eight directors of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America at a. salary of 150,00 dollars a year. An infantile giant, the cinema industry in America, has been suffering from growing pains and, paradoxically, from a complexity of diseases common only to sentility. American pictures have been showing unmistakable/ signs of artistic; and moral decadence. A wealthy industry, it has been subject to large and fraudulent promotions. It has also been faced with the problem of overproduction, more pictures being made than could be exhibited, and the large producers being compelled to build new cinema theatres to afford an outlet for their goods. To these troubles must be added two other serious ones. The number of persons going to see the pictures has been decreasing, due to bad or stupid! films, and the private lives of the cinema actors, revealed to the public in a series of scandals at Holywood. the great movie city, have been shown to bo anything but exemplary. The professional reformers have attacked the movies at these last two weak points. vSix States of the 48 now have moving picture censors who remorselessly cut and denature the reels coming under their supervision, to the mortification and chagrin of the producers. It was this situation that the big "movie" concerns faced, and they saw salvation in Hays. The articles of incorporation of the motion picture producers and distributors of America, set. forth the object of the oranisatgion to be the fostering of "the common interests of those engaged in the motion picture industry in the United States by establishing and maintaining the highest possible moral and artistic standards in motion picture production, by developing the educational as well as the entertainment value and the general usefulness of the motion picture, by diffusing correct and reliable information with reference to the industry, hv reforming abusives relative to the industry, by securing*freedom from unjust or unlawful exactions, and by other lawful and proper means."' Jn a speech shortly after assuming his new position, Mr Hays said: "Statewide or nation-wide censorship will fail in everything it undertakes. It hasn't been done successfully, and never will be. Too many people who know nothing about the business are named on censorships. We are going to obviate the necessity lor censorship. The motion picture industry accepts the challenge in the demand of the American public tor highest buality art and interest in its entertainment. We accept the challenge in the righteous demand of the American mother that the entertainment and amusement of youth be worth of its value as the most potent factor in the country's future. By our opportunities are our responsibilities measured. .. . Our association is dedicated to the aid of the industry and the discharge of these obligations. and to that I am dedicating my lite and my best years." Mr Hay's first important official act was to bar the showing of pictures in which Roscoe (Fatty) Arbnckle was featured. The latest addition to the list of potentates in the arts is August Thomas, who a week or so ago was chosen to he executive chairman of the Producing Managers' Association of New York. Criticism of the American stage has been as severe as criticism of the cinema. The Society for the Suppression of Vice has brought enterprising producers of "bedroom farces" into the courts, magistrates have puzzled over the testimony of alleged indecency given !>y stolid and simple-minded policemen, high courts have delivered injunctions restraining the commissioners of licenses from closing so-called objectionable plays, and the morbidly-minded public has flocked to shady pieces made attractive by the attendant publicity. All in all. it has been an unpleasant business, lor while New York —the centred of the American theatrical world — docs offer each year a considerable number of fine plays finely produced, the majority of the dramatic offerings in the metropolis are of a very low order from any point of view. In choosing Mr Thomas, who is a well-known playwright, to help them eliminate the objectionable plays before they are produced, and to heighten the artistic standard of productions generally, the managers hope to forestall the censorship which they can see in the offing more stringent and uncompromising than- the present statutes against unde-