2/8/2016

MUTUALFILMCORP.v.INDUSTRIALCOMMISSIONOFOHIO|FindLaw
NotaLegalProfessional?Visitourconsumersite
Register | LogIn

CASES&CODES PRACTICEMANAGEMENT JOBS&CAREERS LEGALNEWS

Forms

LawTechnology

LawyerMarketing

BLOGS SERVICEPROVIDERS

CorporateCounsel

LawStudents

JusticeMail

SearchFindLaw
Newsletters

FindLaw Caselaw UnitedStates USSupremeCourt

MUTUALFILMCORP.v.INDUSTRIALCOMMISSIONOFOHIO

MUTUALFILMCORP.v.INDUSTRIALCOMMISSION
OFOHIO
Print

448

Fontsize:

Reset

UnitedStatesSupremeCourt
MUTUALFILMCORP.v.INDUSTRIALCOMMISSIONOFOHIO,(1915)
No.456
Argued:Decided:February23,1915
[236U.S.230,231]Appealfromanorderdenyingappellant,hereindesignated

complainant,aninterlocutoryinjunctionsoughttorestraintheenforcement

FindLawCareerCenter

ofanactofthegeneralassemblyofOhio,passedApril16,1913(103Ohio
Laws,399),creatingundertheauthorityandsuperintendenceofthe
IndustrialCommissionofthestateaboardofcensorsofmotionpicture
films.Themotionwaspresentedtothreejudgesuponthebill,supporting
affidavits,andsomeoraltestimony.
Thebillisquitevoluminous.ItmakesthefollowingattacksupontheOhio

Attorney
CorporateCounsel
Academic
JudicialClerk
SummerAssociate
Intern
LawLibrarian

Paralegal
SearchJobs PostaJob|ViewMoreJobs
ViewMore

statute:(1)Thestatuteisinviolationof5,16,and19ofarticle1ofthe
Constitutionofthestateinthatdeprivescomplainantofaremedybydue
processoflawbyplacingitinthepoweroftheboardofcensorstodetermine
fromstandardsfixedbyitselfwhatfilmsconformtothestatute,andthereby
deprivescomplainantofajudicialdeterminationofaviolationofthelaw.(2)
Thestatuteisinviolationofarticles1and14oftheAmendmentstothe
ConstitutionoftheUnitedStates,andof11ofarticle1oftheConstitutionof
Ohio,inthatitrestrainscomplainantandotherpersonsfromfreelywriting
andpublishingtheirsentiments.(3)Itattemptstogivetheboardofcensors
legislativepower,[236U.S.230,232]whichisvestedonlyinthegeneralassembly
ofthestate,subjecttoareferendumvoteofthepeople,inthatitgivestothe
boardthepowertodeterminetheapplicationofthestatutewithoutfixing
anystandardbywhichtheboardshallbeguidedinitsdetermination,and
placesitinthepoweroftheboard,actingwithsimilarboardsinotherstates,
toreject,uponanywhimorcaprice,anyfilmwhichmaybepresented,and
powertodeterminethelegalstatusoftheforeignboardorboards,in
conjunctionwithwhichitisempoweredtoact.

InjuryClaim?

Findouthowmuchyour
settlementcouldbeworth.
eClaimInjury.com

NeedaNewTake?

ReadFindLawsSupremeCourtBlog
ToGettheFreshestUpdatesNow!
blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_court

CarAccidentInjury?

Youmayqualifyforcompensation.
FindOutToday!
eClaimInjury.com

Thebusinessofthecomplainantandthedescription,use,object,andeffect
ofmotionpicturesandotherfilmscontainedinthebill,statednarratively,
areasfollows:Complainantisengagedinthebusinessofpurchasing,selling,
andleasingfilms,thefilmsbeingproducedinotherstatesthanOhio,andin
Europeanandotherforeigncountries.Thefilmconsistsofaseriesof
instantaneousphotographsorpositiveprintsofactionuponthestageorin
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ussupremecourt/236/230.html

1/9

2/8/2016

MUTUALFILMCORP.v.INDUSTRIALCOMMISSIONOFOHIO|FindLaw

theopen.Bybeingprojecteduponascreenwithgreatrapiditythereappears
totheeyeanillusionofmotion.Theydepictdramatizationsofstandard
novels,exhibitingmanysubjectsofscientificinterest,thepropertiesof
matter,thegrowthofthevariousformsofanimalandplantlife,and
explorationsandtravelsalsoeventsofhistoricalandcurrentinterest,the
sameeventswhicharedescribedinwordsandbyphotographsin
newspapers,weeklyperiodicals,magazines,andotherpublications,ofwhich
photographsarepromptlysecuredafewdaysaftertheeventswhichthey
depicthappenthusregularlyfurnishingandpublishingnewsthroughthe
mediumofmotionpicturesunderthenameof'MutualWeekly.'Nothingis
depictedofaharmfulorimmoralcharacter.
Thecomplainantissellingandhassoldduringthepastyearforexhibitionin
Ohioanaverageoffiftysixpositiveprintsoffilmsperweektofilm
exchangesdoingbusinessinthatstate,theaveragevaluethereofbeingthe
sumof*[236U.S.230,233]$100,aggregating$6,000perweek,or$300,000per
annum.
InadditiontosellingfilmsinOhio,complainanthasafilmexchangein
Detroit,Michigan,fromwhichitrentsorleaseslargequantitiestoexhibitors
inthelatterstateandinOhio.Thebusinessofthatexchangeandthosein
Ohioistopurchasefilmsfromcomplainantandothermanufacturersoffilms
andrentthemtoexhibitorsforshortperiodsatstatedweeklyrentals.The
amountofrentalsdependsuponthenumberofreelsrented,thefrequencyof
thechangesofsubject,andtheageornoveltyofthereelsrented.The
frequencyofexhibitionisdescribed.Itisthecustomofthebusiness,
observedbyallmanufacturers,thatasubjectshallbereleasedorpublished
inalltheatersonthesameday,whichisknownasreleaseday,andtheageor
noveltyofthefilmdependsupontheproximityofthedayofexhibitionto
suchreleaseday.Filmssoshownhaveneverbeenshowninpublic,andthe
publictowhomtheyappealisthereforeunlimited.Suchpublicbecomes
moreandmorelimitedbyeachadditionalexhibitionofthereel.
TheamountofbusinessinrentingorleasingfromtheDetroitexchangefor
exhibitioninOhioaggregatesthesumof$1,000perweek.
ComplainanthasonhandatitsDetroitexchangeatleast2,500reelsoffilms
whichitintendstoandwillexhibitinOhio,andwhichitwillbeimpossibleto
exhibitunlessthesameshallhavebeenapprovedbytheboardofcensors.
Otherexchangeshavefilms,duplicateprintsofalargepartofcomplainant's
films,forthepurposeofsellingandleasingtopartiesresidinginOhio,and
thestatuteofthestatewillrequiretheirexaminationandthepaymentofa
feetherefor.Theamountsofcomplainant'spurchasesarestated,andthat
complainantwillbecompelledtobeartheexpenseofhavingthemcensored
becauseitscustomerswillnotpurchaseorhireuncensoredfilms.
Thebusinessofsellingandleasingfilmsfromitsoffices[236U.S.230,234]
outsideofthestateofOhiotopurchasersandexhibitorswithinthestateis
interstatecommerce,whichwillbeseriouslyburdenedbytheexactionofthe
feeforcensorship,whichisnotproperlyaninspectiontax,andtheproceeds
ofwhichwillbelargelyinexcessofthecostofenforcingthestatute,andwill
innoeventbepaidtotheTreasuryoftheUnitedStates.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ussupremecourt/236/230.html

2/9

2/8/2016

MUTUALFILMCORP.v.INDUSTRIALCOMMISSIONOFOHIO|FindLaw

Theboardhasdemandedofcomplainantthatitsubmititsfilmsto
censorship,andthreatens,unlesscomplainantcomplieswiththedemand,to
arrestanyandallpersonswhoseektoplaceonexhibitionanyfilmnotso
censoredorapprovedbythecensorcongressonandafterNovember4,1913,
thedatetowhichtheactwasextended.Itisphysicallyimpossibletocomply
withsuchdemandandphysicallyimpossiblefortheboardtocensorthefilms
withsuchrapidityastoenablecomplainanttoproceedwithitsbusiness,and
thedelayconsequentuponsuchexaminationwouldcausegreatand
irreparableinjurytosuchbusiness,andwouldinvolveamultiplicityofsuits.
Therewereaffidavitsfiledinsupportofthebillandsometestimonytaken
orally.Oneoftheaffidavitsshowedthemannerofshippinganddistributing
thefilms,andwasasfollows:
'Thefilmsareshippedbythemanufacturerstothefilmexchangesinclosedin
circularmetalboxes,eachofwhichmetalboxesisinturninclosedinafiber
orwoodencontainer.Thefilmisinmostcaseswrappedaroundaspoolor
coreinacirclewithinthemetalcase.Sometimesthefilmisreceivedbythe
filmexchangewoundonareel,whichconsistsofacylindricalcorewith
circularflangestopreventthefilmfromslippingoffthecore,andwhenso
woundonthereelisalsoreceivedinmetalboxes,asabovedescribed.When
thefilmisnotreceivedonareel,itis,uponreceipt,takenfromthemetal
box,woundonareel,andthenreplacedinthemetalbox.Sowoundandso
inclosedinmetalboxes,thefilmsareshippedbythefilm[236U.S.230,235]
exchangestotheircustomers.Thecustomerstakethefilmasitiswoundon
thereelfromthemetalbox,andexhibitthepicturesintheirprojecting
machines,whicharesoarrangedastopermitoftheunwindingofthefilm
fromthereelonwhichitisshipped.Duringexhibition,thereeloffilmis
unwoundfromonereelandrewoundinreverseorderonasecondreel.After
exhibition,itmustbeagainunwoundfromthesecondreelfromitsreverse
positionandreplacedontheoriginalreelinitsproperposition.Afterthe
exhibitionsforthedayareover,thefilmisreplacedinthemetalboxand
returnedtothefilmexchange,andthisprocessisfollowedfromdaytoday
duringthelifeofthefilm.'Allshipmentsoffilmsfrommanufacturerstofilm
exchanges,fromfilmexchangestoexhibitors,andfromexhibitorsbackto
filmexchanges,aremadeinaccordancewithregulationsoftheInterstate
CommerceCommission,oneofwhichprovidesasfollows:"Movingpicture
filmsmustbeplacedinmetalcases,packedinstrongandtightwoodenboxes
offiberpails."
Anotheroftheaffidavitsdividedthebusinessasfollows:
'Themotionpicturebusinessisconductedinthreebranchesthatistosay,
bymanufacturers,distributers,andexhibitors,thedistributersbeingknown
asfilmexchanges....Filmismanufacturedandproducedinlengthsof
about1,000feet,whichareplacedonreels,andthemarketpriceperreelof
filmofathousandfeetinlengthisattherateof10centsperfoot,or$100.
Manufacturersdonotselltheirfilmdirecttoexhibitors,butselltofilm
exchanges,andthefilmexchangesdonotresellthefilmtoexhibitors,but
rentitouttothem.'Afterstatingthepopularityofmotionpictures,andthe
demandofthepublicfornewones,andthegreatexpensetheirpurchase
wouldbetoexhibitors,theaffidavitproceedsasfollows:'Forthatreasonfilm
exchangescameintoexistence,andfilmexchangessuchastheMutualFilm
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ussupremecourt/236/230.html

3/9

2/8/2016

MUTUALFILMCORP.v.INDUSTRIALCOMMISSIONOFOHIO|FindLaw

Corporationarelikeclearinghousesorcirculatinglibraries,inthatthey
purchasethefilmandrentitouttodifferentexhibitors.Onereeloffilm
beingmadetodayservesinmanytheatersfromdaytodayuntilitisworn
out.Thefilmexchange,inrentingoutthefilms,supervisestheircirculation.'
Anaffidavitwasfiled,madebythe'generalsecretaryofthenationalboardof
censorshipofmotionpictures,whoseofficeisatNo.50MadisonAvenue,
NewYorkcity.'The'nationalboard,'itisaverred,'isanorganization
maintainedbyvoluntarycontributions,whoseobjectistoimprovethemoral
qualityofmotionpictures.'Attachedtotheaffidavitwasalistofsubjects
submittedtotheboardwhichare'classifiedaccordingtothenatureofsaid
subjectsintoscenic,geographic,historical,classical,andeducationaland
propagandistic.'[236U.S.230,236]Messrs.WilliamB.Sanders,WalterN.
Seligsberg,andHaroldT.Clarkforappellant.
Messrs.WaldoG.MorseandJacobSchechterasamicicuriae.
[236U.S.230,239]Messrs.RobertM.Morgan,ClarenceD.Laylin,JamesI.

Boulger,andMr.TimothyS.Hogan,AttorneyGeneralofOhio,forappellees.
Mr.JusticeMcKenna,afterstatingthecaseasabove,deliveredtheopinion
ofthecourt:
Complainantdirectsitsargumenttothreepropositions:(1)Thestatutein
controversyimposesanunlawfulburdenoninterstatecommerce(2)it
violatesthefreedomofspeechandpublicationguaranteedby11,article1,of
theConstitutionofthestateofOhio1and(3)itattemptstodelegate
legislativepowertocensorsandtootherboardstodeterminewhetherthe
statuteoffendsintheparticularsdesignated.
Itisnecessarytoconsideronly3,4,and5.Section3makesitthedutyofthe
boardtoexamineandcensormotionpicturefilmstobepubliclyexhibited
anddisplayed[236U.S.230,240]inthestateofOhio.Thefilmsarerequiredtobe
exhibitedtotheboardbeforetheyaredeliveredtotheexhibitorfor
exhibition,forwhichafeeischarged.
Section4.'Onlysuchfilmsasare,inthejudgmentanddiscretionofthe
boardofcensors,ofamoral,educational,oramusingandharmlesscharacter
shallbepassedandapprovedbysuchboard.'Thefilmsarerequiredtobe
stampedordesignatedinapropermanner.
Section5.Theboardmayworkinconjunctionwithcensorboardsofother
statesasacensorcongress,andtheactionofsuchcongressinapprovingor
rejectingfilmsshallbeconsideredastheactionofthestateboard,andall
filmspassed,approved,stamped,andnumberedbysuchcongress,whenthe
feesthereforarepaid,shallbeconsideredapprovedbytheboard.
By7apenaltyisimposedforeachexhibitionoffilmswithouttheapprovalof
theboard,andby8anypersondissatisfiedwiththeorderoftheboardis
giventhesamerightsandremediesforhearingandreviewing,amendment
orvacationoftheorder'asisprovidedinthecaseofpersonsdissatisfiedwith
theordersoftheIndustrialCommission.'
Thecensorship,therefore,isonlyoffilmsintendedforexhibitioninOhio,
andwecanimmediatelyputtoonesidethecontentionthatitimposesa
burdenoninterstatecommerce.Itistruethat,accordingtotheallegationsof
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ussupremecourt/236/230.html

4/9

2/8/2016

MUTUALFILMCORP.v.INDUSTRIALCOMMISSIONOFOHIO|FindLaw

thebill,someofthefilmsofcomplainantareshippedfromDetroit,
Michigan,buttheyaredistributedtoexhibitors,purchasers,renters,and
lessorsinOhio,forexhibitioninOhio,andthisdeterminestheapplicationof
thestatute.Inotherwords,itisonlyfilmswhichare'tobepubliclyexhibited
anddisplayedinthestateofOhio'whicharerequiredtobeexaminedand
censored.Itwouldbestrainingthedoctrineoforiginalpackagestosaythat
thefilmsretainthatformandcompositionevenwhenunrollingand
exhibitingtoaudiences,or,beingreadyfor[236U.S.230,241]rentingforthe
purposeofexhibitionwithinthestate,couldnotbedisclosedtothestate
officers.Ifthisbeso,whateverthepowerofthestatetopreventthe
exhibitionoffilmsnotapproved,andforthepurposeofthiscontentionwe
mustassumethepowerisotherwiseplenary,filmsbroughtfromanother
state,andonlybecausesobrought,wouldbeexemptfromthepower,and
filmsmadeinthestatewouldbesubjecttoit.Theremustbesometimewhen
thefilmsaresubjecttothelawofthestate,andnecessarilywhentheyarein
thehandsoftheexchanges,readytoberentedtoexhibitors,orhavepassed
tothelatter,theyareinconsumption,andmingledasmuchasfromtheir
naturetheycanbewithotherpropertyofthestate.
Itistruethatthestatuterequiresthemtobesubmittedtotheboardbefore
theyaredeliveredtotheexhibitor,butwehaveseenthatthefilmsare
shippedto'exchanges'andbythemrentedtoexhibitors,andthe'exchanges'
aredescribedas'nothingmoreorlessthancirculatinglibrariesorclearing
houses.'Andonefilm'servesinmanytheatersfromdaytodayuntilitis
wornout.'
Thenextcontentionisthatthestatuteviolatesthefreedomofspeechand
publicationguaranteedbytheOhioConstitution.Initsdiscussioncounsel
havegoneintoaveryelaboratedescriptionofmovingpictureexhibitionsand
theirmanyusefulpurposesasgraphicexpressionsofopinionand
sentiments,asexponentsofpolicies,asteachersofscienceandhistory,as
useful,interesting,amusing,educational,andmoral.Andalistofthe
'campaigns,'ascounselcallthem,whichmaybecarriedon,isgiven.Wemay
concedethepraise.ItisnotquestionedbytheOhiostatute,andunderits
comprehensivedescription,'campaigns'ofaninfinitevarietymaybe
conducted.Filmsofa'moral,educational,oramusingandharmless
charactershallbepassedandapproved,'arethewordsofthestatute.No
exhibition,therefore,or'campaign'[236U.S.230,242]ofcomplainantwillbe
preventedifitspictureshavethosequalities.Therefore,howevermissionary
ofopinionfilmsareormaybecome,howevereducationalorentertaining,
thereisnoimpedimenttotheirvalueoreffectintheOhiostatute.Butthey
maybeusedforevil,andagainstthatpossibilitythestatutewasenacted.
Theirpowerofamusement,and,itmaybe,education,theaudiencesthey
assemble,notofwomenalonenorofmenalone,buttogether,notofadults
only,butofchildren,makethemthemoreinsidiousincorruptionbya
pretenseofworthypurposeoriftheyshoulddegeneratefromworthy
purpose.Indeed,wemaygobeyondthatpossibility.Theytaketheir
attractionfromthegeneralinterest,eagerandwholesomeitmaybe,intheir
subjects,butaprurientinterestmaybeexcitedandappealedto.Besides,
therearesomethingswhichshouldnothavepictorialrepresentationin
publicplacesandtoallaudiences.AndnotonlythestateofOhio,butother
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ussupremecourt/236/230.html

5/9

2/8/2016

MUTUALFILMCORP.v.INDUSTRIALCOMMISSIONOFOHIO|FindLaw

states,haveconsideredittobeintheinterestofthepublicmoralsand
welfaretosupervisemovingpictureexhibitions.Wewouldhavetoshutour
eyestothefactsoftheworldtoregardtheprecautionunreasonableorthe
legislationtoeffectitamerewantoninterferencewithpersonalliberty.
Wedonotunderstandthatapossibilityofanevilemploymentoffilmsis
denied,butafreedomfromthecensorshipofthelawandaprecedentright
ofexhibitionareasserted,subsequentresponsibilityonly,itiscontended,
beingincurredforabuse.Inotherwords,aswehaveseen,theConstitution
ofOhioisinvoked,andanexhibitionoffilmsisassimilatedtothefreedomof
speech,writing,andpublicationassuredbythatinstrument,andforthe
abuseofwhichonlyisthereresponsibility,and,itisinsisted,thatasnolaw
maybepassed'torestrainthelibertyofspeechorofthepress,'nolawmay
bepassedtosubjectmovingpicturestocensorshipbeforetheirexhibition.
[236U.S.230,243]Weneednotpausetodilateuponthefreedomofopinionand

itsexpression,andwhetherbyspeech,writing,orprinting.Theyaretoo
certaintoneeddiscussionofsuchconcededvalueastoneednosupporting
praise.Norcantherebeanydoubtoftheirbreadth,northattheirunderlying
safeguardis,tousethewordsofanother,'thatopinionisfree,andthat
conductaloneisamenabletothelaw.'
Aremovingpictureswithintheprinciple,asitiscontendedtheyare?They,
indeed,maybemediumsofthought,butsoaremanythings.Soisthe
theater,thecircus,andallothershowsandspectacles,andtheir
performancesmaybethusbroughtbythelikereasoningunderthesame
immunityfromrepressionorsupervisionasthepublicpress,madethesame
agenciesofcivilliberty.
Counselhavenotshrunkfromthisextensionoftheircontention,andcitea
caseinthiscourtwherethetitleofdramawasaccordedtopantomime2and
suchandotherspectaclesaresaidbycounseltobepublicationsofideas,
satisfyingthedefinitionofthedictionaries,thatis,andwequotecounsel,a
meansofmakingorannouncingpubliclysomethingthatotherwisemight
haveremainedprivateorunknown,andthisbeingpeculiarlythepurpose
andeffectofmovingpictures,theycomedirectly,itiscontended,underthe
protectionoftheOhioconstitution.
Thefirstimpulseofthemindistorejectthecontention.Weimmediatelyfeel
thattheargumentiswrongorstrainedwhichextendstheguarantiesoffree
opinionandspeechtothemultitudinousshowswhichareadvertisedonthe
billboardsofourcitiesandtowns,andwhichregardsthemasemblemsof
publicsafety,tousethewordsofLordCamden,quotedbycounsel,and
whichseeksto[236U.S.230,244]bringmotionpicturesandotherspectacleinto
practicalandlegalsimilitudetoafreepressandlibertyofopinion.
Thejudicialsensesupportingthecommonsenseofthecountryisagainstthe
contention.Aspointedoutbythedistrictcourt,thepolicepowerisfamiliarly
exercisedingrantingorwithholdinglicensesfortheatricalperformancesasa
meansoftheirregulation.Thecourtcitedthefollowingcases:Marmetv.
State,45OhioSt.63,72,73,12N.E.463Bakerv.Cincinnati,11OhioSt.
534Com.v.McGann,213Mass.213,215,100N.E.355Peoplev.Steele,
231Ill.340,344,345,14L.R.A.(N.S.)361,121Am.St.Rep.321,83N.E.236.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ussupremecourt/236/230.html

6/9

2/8/2016

MUTUALFILMCORP.v.INDUSTRIALCOMMISSIONOFOHIO|FindLaw

Theexerciseofthepoweruponmovingpictureexhibitionshasbeen
sustained.Greenbergv.WesternTurf.Asso.148Cal.126,113Am.St.Rep.
216,82Pac.684,19Am.Neg.Rep.72Laurellev.Bush,17Cal.App.409,119
Pac.953Statev.Loden,117Md.373,40L.R.A.(N.S.)193,83Atl.564,Ann.
Cas.1913E,1300Blockv.Chicago,239Ill.251,130Am.St.Rep.219,87N.
E.1011Higginsv.Lacroix,119Minn.145,41L.R.A.(N.S.)737,137N.W.417.
SeealsoStatev.Morris,1Boyce(Del.)330,76Atl.479Peopleexrel.Moses
v.Gaynor,77Misc.Rep.576,137N.Y.Supp.196,199McKenziev.
McClellan,62Misc.Rep.342,116N.Y.Supp.645,646.
Itseemsnottohaveoccurredtoanybodyinthecitedcasesthatfreedomof
opinionwasrepressedintheexertionofthepowerwhichwasillustrated.The
rightsofpropertywereonlyconsideredasinvolved.Itcannotbeputoutof
viewthattheexhibitionofmovingpicturesisabusiness,pureandsimple,
originatedandconductedforprofit,likeotherspectacles,nottoberegarded,
norintendedtoberegardedbytheOhioConstitution,wethink,aspartofthe
pressofthecountry,orasorgansofpublicopinion.Theyaremere
representationsofevents,ofideasandsentimentspublishedandknown
vivid,useful,andentertaining,nodoubt,but,aswehavesaid,capableofevil,
havingpowerforit,thegreaterbecauseoftheirattractivenessandmannerof
exhibition.Itwasthiscapabilityandpower,anditmaybeinexperienceof
them,thatinducedthestateofOhio,inadditiontoprescribingpenaltiesfor
immoralexhibitions,asitdoesinitsCriminal[236U.S.230,245]Code,torequire
censorshipbeforeexhibition,asitdoesbytheactunderreview.Wecannot
regardthisasbeyondthepowerofgovernment.
Itdoesnotmilitateagainstthestrengthoftheseconsiderationsthatmotion
picturesmaybeusedtoamuseandinstructinotherplacesthantheaters,in
churches,forinstance,andinSundayschoolsandpublicschools.Norarewe
calledupontosayonthisrecordwhethersuchexceptionswouldbewithin
theprovisionsofthestatute,nortoanticipatethatitwillbesodeclaredby
thestatecourts,orsoenforcedbythestateofficers.
ThenextcontentionofcomplainantisthattheOhiostatuteisadelegationof
legislativepower,andvoidforthatifnotfortheotherreasonscharged
againstit,whichwehavediscussed.Whileadministrationandlegislationare
quitedistinctpowers,thelinewhichseparatesexactlytheirexerciseisnot
easytodefineinwords.Itisbestrecognizedinillustrations.Undoubtedlythe
legislaturemustdeclarethepolicyofthelawandfixthelegalprinciples
whicharetocontrolingivencasesbutanadministrativebodymaybe
investedwiththepowertoascertainthefactsandconditionstowhichthe
policyandprinciplesapply.Ifthiscouldnotbedonetherewouldbeinfinite
confusioninthelaws,andinanefforttodetailandtoparticularize,they
wouldmisssufficiencybothinprovisionandexecution.
Theobjectiontothestatuteisthatitfurnishesnostandardofwhatis
educational,moral,amusing,orharmless,andhenceleavesdecisionto
arbitraryjudgment,whim,andcapriceor,asidefromthoseextremes,
leavingittothedifferentviewswhichmightbeentertainedoftheeffectof
thepictures,permittingthe'personalequation'toenter,resulting'inunjust
discriminationagainstsomepropagandistfilm,'whileothersmightbe
approvedwithoutquestion.Butthestatutebyitsprovisionsguardsagainst
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ussupremecourt/236/230.html

7/9

2/8/2016

MUTUALFILMCORP.v.INDUSTRIALCOMMISSIONOFOHIO|FindLaw

suchvariantjudgments,anditsterms,likeother[236U.S.230,246]general
terms,getprecisionfromthesenseandexperienceofmen,andbecome
certainandusefulguidesinreasoningandconduct.Theexactspecification
oftheinstancesoftheirapplicationwouldbeasimpossibleastheattempt
wouldbefutile.Uponsuchsenseandexperience,therefore,thelawproperly
relies.Thishasmanyanalogiesanddirectexamplesincases,andwemaycite
Gundlingv.Chicago,177U.S.183,44L.ed.725,20Sup.Ct.Rep.633Red
'C'OilMfg.Co.v.BoardofAgriculture,222U.S.380,56L.ed.240,32Sup.
Ct.Rep.152MonongahelaBridgeCo.v.UnitedStates,216U.S.177,54L.
ed.435,30Sup.Ct.Rep.356Buttfieldv.Stranahan,192U.S.470,48L.ed.
525,24Sup.Ct.Rep.349.SeealsoWatersPierceOilCo.v.Texas,212U.S.
86,53L.ed.417,29Sup.Ct.Rep.220.Ifthiswerenotso,themany
administrativeagenciescreatedbythestateandnationalgovernmentswould
bedenudedoftheirutility,andgovernmentinsomeofitsmostimportant
exercisesbecomeimpossible.
Tosustaintheattackuponthestatuteasadelegationoflegislativepower,
complainantcitesHarmonv.State,66OhioSt.249,53L.R.A.618,64N.E.
117.Inthatcaseastatuteofthestatecommittingtoacertainofficertheduty
ofissuingalicensetoonedesiringtoactasanengineerif'foundtrustworthy
andcompetent'wasdeclaredinvalidbecause,asthecourtsaid,nostandard
wasfurnishedbythegeneralassemblyastoqualification,andno
specificationastowhereintheapplicantshouldbetruthworthyand
competent,butallwas'lefttotheopinion,finding,andcapriceofthe
examiner.'Thecasecanbedistinguished.Besides,latercaseshave
recognizedthedifficultyofexactseparationofthepowersofgovernment,
andannouncedtheprinciplethatlegislativepoweriscompletelyexercised
wherethelaw'isperfect,final,anddecisiveinallofitsparts,andthe
discretiongivenonlyrelatestoitsexecution.'Casesarecitedinillustration.
Andtheprinciplefindsfurtherillustrationinthedecisionsofthecourtsof
lesserauthority,butwhichexhibitthejuridicalsenseofthestateastothe
delegationofpowers.
Section5ofthestatute,whichprovidesforacensor[236U.S.230,247]congress
ofthecensorboardandtheboardsofotherstates,isreferredtoinemphasis
ofcomplainant'sobjectionthatthestatutedelegateslegislativepower.But,
ascomplainantsays,suchcongressis'atpresentnonexistentandnebulous'
andweare,therefore,notcalledupontoanticipateitsaction,orpassupon
thevalidityof5.
Wemayclosethistopicwithaquotationoftheveryaptcommentofthe
districtcourtuponthestatute.Afterremarkingthatthelanguageofthe
statute'mighthavebeenextendedbydescriptionandillustrativewords,'but
doubtingthatitwouldhavebeenthemoreintelligible,andthatprobablyby
beingmorerestrictivemightbemoreeasilythwarted,thecourtsaid:'Inview
oftherangeofsubjectswhichcomplainantsclaimtohavealready
compassed,nottospeakofthenaturaldevelopmentthatwillensue,itwould
benexttoimpossibletodeviselanguagethatwouldbeatonce
comprehensiveandautomatic.'[215Fed.147.]
InconclusionwemayobservethattheOhiostatutegivesareviewbythe
courtsofthestateofthedecisionoftheboardofcensors.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ussupremecourt/236/230.html

8/9

2/8/2016

MUTUALFILMCORP.v.INDUSTRIALCOMMISSIONOFOHIO|FindLaw

Decreeaffirmed.
Footnotes

[Footnote1]'Section11.Everycitizenmayfreelyspeak,write,andpublish
hissentimentsonallsubjects,beingresponsiblefortheabuseoftheright
andnolawshallbepassedtorestrainorabridgethelibertyofspeech,orof
thepress.Inallcriminalprosecutionsforlibelthetruthmaybegivenin
evidencetothejury,andifitshallappeartothejurythatthemattercharged
aslibelousistrue,andwaspublishedwithgoodmotivesandforjustifiable
ends,thepartyshallbeacquitted.'
[Footnote2]KalemCo.v.HarperBros.222U.S.55,56L.ed.92,32Sup.
Ct.Rep.20,Ann.Cas.1913A,1285.

RESEARCHTHELAW

Cases&Codes/OpinionSummaries/SampleBusinessContracts/ResearchAnAttorneyorLawFirm

MANAGEYOURPRACTICE

LawTechnology/LawPracticeManagement/LawFirmMarketingServices/CorporateCounselCenter

MANAGEYOURCAREER

LegalCareerJobSearch/OnlineCLE/LawStudentResources

NEWSANDCOMMENTARY

LegalNewsHeadlines/LawCommentary/FeaturedDocuments/Newsletters/Blogs/RSSFeeds

GETLEGALFORMS

LegalFormsforYourPractice

ABOUTUS

CompanyHistory/MediaRelations/ContactUs/Privacy/Advertising/Jobs

FINDUSON

Copyright2016FindLaw,aThomsonReutersbusiness.Allrightsreserved.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ussupremecourt/236/230.html

9/9