Mutual Film Corporation of Missouri v. George Hodges
Decision Date | 23 February 1915 |
Docket Number | No. 597,597 |
Citation | 35 S.Ct. 393,236 U.S. 248,59 L.Ed. 561 |
Parties | MUTUAL FILM CORPORATION OF MISSOURI, Appt., v. GEORGE H. HODGES, Governor; Charles H. Sessions, Secretary of State; John S. Dawson, Attorney General; and W. D. Ross, State Superintendent of Public Instruction of the State of Kansas |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Appellant, which we shall call complainant, it being such in the court below, is a Delaware corporation and the defendants are officers of the state of Kansas.
The bill attacks the validity of a law of Kansas censoring moving picture films, and prays an injunction against its enforcement. The relief was denied and the bill dismissed. This appeal was then allowed.
The bill alleges that complainant is engaged in local and interstate commerce in the renting, leasing, selling, and delivery of "films" in the state of Kansas and other states, which films have been and now are being used in the motion picture show business in Kansas, as well as elsewhere.
It is alleged that a film
The manner of the production of a film is stated, and that there are in the state about five hundred moving picture theaters using the films, and each theater uses an average of three films a day.
That a revenue in the shape of a tax of $2 is attempted to be imposed upon each film censored, which means a tax of $6 per day on the films sold, rented, or used in each show, approximating $3,000 per day on the picture show business in the state, and making a total revenue of $40,000 for the first three months from the beginning of the enforcement of the act, and thereafter a revenue of thousands of dollars to be imposed as a tax upon films printed and produced in Kansas.
That the act places a tax of about $300 a week on the films rented, hired, and shipped into the state for the period of three months, and about $6,000 for the first year, and means thereafter a tax on the interstate commerce business of complainant, a similar tax to be imposed on all films produced and printed and sent into Kansas.
That upon the films brought into the state the duty of censorship is imposed upon the state superintendent of public instruction, thereby attempting to place in him the exclusive power of censorship of all films sent into the state for use in the state, and the power to review and stamp with his approval the films used, shipped, or rented or sent into the state; and the act provides that no film shall be exempt until a fee of $2 be paid, and that all fees shall be paid into the state treasury and credited to the general fund of the state. That on account of the way the business is conducted, complainant and other film exchanges must necessarily bear the expense of censorship, otherwise the amount of the charges therefor would be necessarily doubled or trebled.
The bill attacks the law for various reasons, having foundation, it is alleged, in the provisions of the Federal and state Constitutions, which may be summarized as follows: The prohibition upon the state to lay an import or export duty; or to abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, the statute of the state effending in this as it places an embargo and prohibition upon citizens of other states in transacting a lawful business in Kansas. The statute violates the Bill of Rights of the United States and of the state of Kansas, as it deprives of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, and particularly of the freedom to say, write, or publish whatever one will on any subject, 'being only responsible for all abuse of that liberty,' and that there can be no abuse until it is judicially determined.
It is alleged that the attorney general of the state threatens to enforce the act, although it seems to be charged that he is without the means to do so, and arrests have been made on information filed in one of the courts of the state.
The answer of defendants asserts in elaborate allegations the necessity of the act and of the censorship of films; that it is not primarily a revenue measure, but is an exercise in good faith of the police power of the state for the protection of the public morals, and that 'the legislature, in its unimpeachable wisdom, believed that uncensored pictures were detrimental to the morals and perversive of true education.' In denial of any grievance of complainant under the act the answer alleges the following: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hale v. State
... ... & Eng.Ency.Law (2d Ed.) p. 778." Mut ... Film Corp. v. Ind. Comm., 236 U.S. 230, 35 S.Ct. 387, ... 251, 87 N.E. 1011, 130 Am.St.Rep. 219; Mutual Film, ... etc., v. Ind. Comm., 236 U.S. 233, 35 ... L.Ed. 552; Mutual Film Co. v. Hodges, 236 U.S. 248, ... 35 S.Ct. 393, 59 L.Ed. 561; ... discrimination against a foreign corporation in imposition of ... additional franchise tax, ... ...
-
Fox Film Corporation v. Trumbull
...Mutual Film Corporation v. Ohio Industrial Commission, 236 U. S. 230, 35 S. Ct. 387, 59 L. Ed. 552; Mutual Film Corporation of Missouri v. Hodges, 236 U. S. 248, 35 S. Ct. 393, 59 L. Ed. 561. And no case has been called to our attention in which such legislation has been held invalid by any......
-
Mueller v. Comm'r of Pub. Health
...the Commonwealth does not prevent the adoption of reasonable regulations relative to their sale here. Mutual Film Corp. of Missouri v. Hodges, 236 U.S. 248, 258, 35 S.Ct. 393, 59 L.Ed. 561;Armour & Co. v. North Dakota, 240 U.S. 510, 517, 36 S.Ct. 440, 60 L.Ed. 771, Ann.Cas. 1916D, 548;Pacif......
-
State v. Philips
... ... See ... Mutual Film Corporation of Missouri v. Hodges, ... ...