Although a theatre is a private enterprise (Tyson and Brother v. Banton [1927], 273 U.S. 418), yet it is subject to State control through the licensing power, the taxing power and the police power. The right of governmental authority to require a licence for the privilege of conducting business is not peculiar to the theatre, but exists likewise in many other private enterprises. The taxing power affects theatres in the same manner as it affects other private concerns. The police power goes further in that the State has a right of increased control, since the health or morals of peo ple may be affected. Censorship, in the sense of prior restraint, has been held constitutional as applied to motion pictures (Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio [1915], 236 U.S. 23o). There is no such censorship of the theatre but produc tions are subject to penal statutes prohibiting obscenity. Where the statutes are drastic, as in New York State under the Wales law (Penal Law, Sect. 1140-A), those engaged in a play may be prosecuted if a line, scene or incident is indecent, and in case of conviction of those charged, the licence to operate the theatre may be revoked for a year. In a sense this is more drastic than any censorship since, because of the rigorous penalty, a mere threat by a prosecuting official may result in stopping a play.
A theatre ticket may be in the form of a revocable licence or of a contract. If the former it may be revoked at the will of the pro prietor; if the latter it may be non-transferable or otherwise con ditioned (Tyson and Brother v. Banton [1927], 273 U.S. 418, 440). The producer is entitled to bar any person from the prem ises (Woollcott v. Shubert [1916], 217 N.Y. 212). If this is done the purchaser of a ticket may merely claim breach of contract and demand the return of his money and the repayment of any ex pence incurred (Luxenberg v. Keith and Proctor Amusement Co. [1909], N.Y. 64 Misc. 69; People ex rel. Burnham v. Flynn [1907], 189 N.Y. i8o). The auditor, however, may acquire greater rights if once he has taken a seat (see Cremore v. Huber [1897], 18 N.Y. A.D. 231). A theatre has the right to refuse to accept tickets purchased from a speculator (Collister v. Hayman [1905], 183 N.Y. 250).
The only limitation upon the right of a theatre to discriminate is found in "civil rights" laws which exist in a large number of States (see New York Civil Rights Law, Section 4o, for type of statute), which laws provide that no discrimination shall be made in any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement be cause of race, creed or colour. Violation is ordinarily a misde meanour and subjects the wrongdoer to penalty payable to the party aggrieved (Joyner v. Moore-Wiggins Co. Ltd. [1912], 152 N.Y. App. Div. 266, affirmed 211 N.Y. 522). Under these laws a dance hall is not regarded as a place of public accommodation (Johnson v. Auburn and Syracuse Electric R.R. Co. [1915], 169
A.D. 1864).
A law providing for the limitation of the amount that specula tors or agencies may charge has been held unconstitutional (Tyson and Brother V. Banton [1927], 273 U.S. 458). On the other hand, tax laws assessing agencies to an almost prohibitive amount have been held constitutional by the circuit court of appeals in New York (Alexander Theatre Ticket Office, Inc., V. United States, 23 Fed., 2d series P. 44). The proprietor is not an insurer of persons or property in the theatre. As respects either, he is liable only in case of negligence (property : Pattison v. Hammerstein [1896], N.Y. 17 Misc. Rep. 375. Person: Dunning v. Jacobs [1895], N.Y. 15 Misc. 85; Flanagan v. Goldberg [191o], 137 N.Y. App. Div. 92), although it has been held that he warrants the premises to be reasonably safe (Weiner v. Scherer [1909], N.Y., 64 Misc. 82).
Laws providing for Sunday closing have been held constitu tional (Lindenmuller v. The People [1861], 33 Barb. [N.Y.] 548).
Questions concerning relations between managers and authors, actors and others connected with the profession depend upon con tract. Within recent years in the United States various groups have been organized. The Actors' Equity Association, which in cludes practically all actors of note and which is affiliated with the American Federation of Labor, demands a certain type of contract for actors. The Dramatists' Guild of the Authors' League of America, which in its membership includes practically all play wrights, insists upon a minimum basic agreement limiting the rights of managers in dealing with its members. The Authors' and Composers' League includes in its membership all musical writers of note, and controls the "small rights" connected with presentation.
See Encyclopaedia of Law and cases above cited. (A. G. H.) Other Countries.—In Scotland the Theatres Act, 1843, and the Burgh Police Act, 1892, regulate the licensing of theatres and other places of public entertainment. Sections 395 to 402 of the latter act provide for the licensing and control of places of public resort which are used for the performance of stage plays, as a circus or for any other similar purpose. There is no stage censorship in Ireland.
In Continental Europe Sunday performances in theatres and other places of a similar character are lawful. In most continental European countries (but Denmark is an outstanding exception) there is no State censorship of theatres, the regulation and super vision of various stage plays and of other public entertain ments of the kind being placed in each country either in the hands of the police or in those of the local municipal author ities.
See also MOTION PICTURES; LIQUOR LAWS AND LIQUOR CON TROL; ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.