Mutual Film Corporation of Missouri v. George H. Hodges

236 U.S. 248, 35 S. Ct. 393, 59 L. Ed. 561, 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1757

• Court: Supreme Court of the United States
• Decided: February 23, 1915
• Docket: 597
• Status: Published

Opinion

Mr. Justice McKenna,

after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

Necessarily the first factor to be considered is the law of the State. It is entitled “ An Act regulating the exhibiting or using of moving picture films or reels; providilig and regulating the examination and approval of moving picture films and reels, and fixing penalties for the violation of this act, and making an appropriation for clerical help to carry this act. into effect.”

The following are its provisions: On and after April 1, 1913, it shall be unlawful to exhibit or use any moving picture film or reel unless the same shall have been ex amined and approved by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. Films used in institutions of learning are exempt from the provisions of the act. It is made the duty of such officer to examine the films or reels intended for exhibition and approve such as he shall find to be moral and instructive and to withhold his approval from such as tend to debase or corrupt the morals. His approval is to be stamped in writing upon the films or reels approved. He is to keep a record of examinations made by him, noting those approved and those not approved, stating, the reasons for the latter. A charge of $2.00 is to be made for each examination; He is given the power and authority to supervise and regulate the display of all moving picture films or reels in all places of amusement or elsewhere'within the State, to inquire and investigate, and to have displayed for his benefit to aid him in his investigation, those which are intended to be displayed, and shall approve such as shall be moral and proper and disapprove such as are sacrilegious, obscene, indecent or immoral, or such as tend to corrupt the morals. His disapproval of any film or reel may be reviewed by a commission consisting of the Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State, and if they or a majority of them find the film or reel fit for exhibition it shall be approved. It is the duty of every person exhibiting or permitting to be exhibited any film or reel within thé State to furnish the Superintendent of Instruction, if he require it, a description of such film or reel and a description of its scenes and purposes and to exhibit and display it for his examination and approval. Any person exhibiting or permitting to be exhibited any unapproved filrn or reel shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; and each liable to suit and separate fines.

It will be observed that the law makes only exhibitors or those permitting, exhibitions of unapproved films liable to the penalties of the act, and, as we have seen, it is alleged by the defendants that as complainant is in neither class, it has no standing to attack the statute. To this complainant replies that its sales are interfered with, and invokes, as sustaining its right to complain, Savage v. ' Jones, 225 U. S. 501. This may be; but complainant, by asserting such right, cannot enlarge the character of the statute or give to it an operation which it does not have,— cannot, for instance, make the importation of films into the State an offense under it, and not their exhibition, which only it punishes — cannot, therefore, make the act an interference with interstate commerce instead of what it is — an exercise of the police power of the State-upon things within the State. Nor can it make any difference that the “exchanges can more conveniently submit the films for approval than exhibitors can.”

The opinion in No. 456 becomes applicable here. Indeed, this case was argued conjointly with that and submitted on the samé briefs. It is here contended that the Kansas statute has the same invalidity and for the same reasons as it was contended there that the statute of Ohio had. We need not, therefore, repeat the reasoning. It establishes that both statutes are valid exercises of the police power of the States and are not amenable to the objections urged against them — that is, do not interfere with interstate commerce nor abridge the liberty of opinion; nor are they delegations of legislative power to administrative officers. •

Decree affirmed.