The Sunday Movie Fight

Although the decade of the 1920s is often thought of in terms of mobsters and flappers, bootlegging and dancing, the reality was that it was a time of struggle between traditional and a more modern culture. The Eighteenth Amendment, which brought about Prohibition, arguably defined the era and was an attempt to rein in perceived immorality.

One of these struggles between the traditional and modern involved the playing of movies on Sunday. Historically, businesses were closed on Sundays, and this included the theaters. But with the rise of labor, more and more people worked during the day, many six days a week, and had few opportunities to enjoy the recreation their earnings would afford. There was a pent-up desire among the working class to engage in recreational activities, and attending movies was an activity people wanted to engage in.

Aside from potentially making more money, theater owners had other arguments for showing movies on Sunday. The issue of fairness was very much on people’s minds., as the working class was not afforded the same opportunities for recreation as their richer counterparts. Most entertainment was closed on Sunday. During the week, often people were too tired from a hard day’s work to go out; often they had to get up early for work, making a late night at the movies difficult. Movies being played on Sunday would help to address economic fairness for folks.

Urbana and Champaign are sister cities. Champaign is the result of the railroad locating their tracks a few miles away from the small established town of Urbana. New development sprang up around the new train depot and within a few years the development was significant enough to become the town of Champaign. It didn’t take long for Champaign to become larger and more progressive then Urbana. In the 1920s, Champaign had several large, premier theaters and vaudeville houses while Urbana had only two modest theaters.

However, the size or progressiveness of a town doesn’t necessarily initiate the drive for change. Often it is individuals who take up an issue. In Urbana, there was just such a pair of individuals, the two theatre owners who decided it was time for a change.

The Princess Theatre circa 1930. Photo courtesy the Champaign County Historical Archives.

Edward Alger of the Colonial Theatre and Gus Freeman of the Princess Theatre, both in Urbana, Illinois decided in July 1925 to push for allowing their movie houses to show movies on Sundays. They asked the Urbana city council for an ordinance to permit a vote on Sunday movies.

Edward Alger owned the Colonial Theatre and was the instigator of the efforts to play movies on Sundays. Photo courtesy of Bob Alger.

This photo of Professor Scovill was taken March 3, 1926. Photo courtesy the Champaign County Historical Archives.

The local pastors in the Ministerial Association did not plan to sit idly by on what they viewed as an attack on holding the Sabbath sacred. They organized at the first mention of the possibility of Sunday shows. The pastors sent several members of the Ministerial Association to address the Urbana City Council to argue against the measure.

In addition, many of the local pastors devoted their Sunday sermons to the issue of Sunday movies. Professor H. T. Scovill, who was an alderman on the city council and the acting major of Urbana while the mayor was out of town, represented many of the pastors’ views. He wrote a long editorial that appeared on the July 25 front page of the local paper, the Urbana Daily Courier, opposing Sunday movies.

The theater managers countered the Ministerial Associations efforts by circulating a petition of support for a vote by the citizens of Urbana. Many prominent business owners and others signed the petition, including many who had no personal interest in the issue itself but objected to the interference of the right of the people to vote directly on this question of public interest.

At the Urbana City Council meeting held July 20, 1925, the alderman decided not to pass any referendum on holding a vote, much to the delight of the Ministerial Association. However, that wasn’t the end of the fight.

What Ordinance, Officer?

After much research on the issue, the two theater managers determined that a city ordinance barring the showing of movies on Sunday did not exist. They both decided to show movies on Sunday, July 26 to see what would happen. The Colonial Theatre showed a slide during the movies that week announcing that on Sunday the film Black Lightning, staring Clara Bow and featuring a dog named Thunder, along with an unnamed comedy and another feature would play. Freeman indicated that he would also show a movie on Sunday, but had not determined the title when the news hit the papers.

The Ministerial Association did not interpret the city ordinances quite the same as the theater owners did. These protestant ministers claimed that, in fact, two ordinances applied to the showing of movies on Sunday. Acting Mayor Scovill directed the city attorney to serve papers to the two theater managers concerning the city ordinances and gave orders to the police to arrest the managers if either showed a movie on Sunday.

Alger contended that the ordinances did not apply to movie theaters. Neither ordinance specifically listed movie theaters. The language closest to barring the movies stated “… or other place of amusement or play….” He pointed out that all of the things listed in the ordinance were types of pool rooms or bowling alleys, and he, therefore, claimed that it was a pool room ordinance. In addition, he said that the law must specifically mention an activity or business for the law to be binding on that type of activity or business. He pointed out that the city’s public park, Crystal Lake Park, was open on Sunday and was a place that people would go for amusement, yet clearly the council did not intend for the park to be included in the ordinance. Mr. Alger further pointed out that an impersonator performed at the Leal School grounds the previous Sunday, and if the ordinance was really intended as the ministers claimed, the impersonator would have been subject to arrest.

Sunday came, the managers did show the movies, and they were arrested. However, a $200 bond was posted for each man by William McClurg, the owner of a local hotel. Both men were released and the movies continued to play. A person cannot be arrested twice for the same crime, so no further action could be taken on Sunday and the issue moved to the courts.

On Friday, July 31, the case was heard in court and dismissed. The court ruled that there was no current city ordinance that prevented the two managers from showing movies in their two theaters. Furthermore, the court ruled that they, therefore, should not have been arrested, and the bond was returned. The two managers had won the day in court, but the battle was just beginning.

The next several council meetings were packed with vocal spectators who were expecting a vote on the Sunday movie issue. The first week the meeting was packed with supporters of the ministers; the next week supporters of the theater managers attended the meeting. Each week the city council postponed the issue. Finally the council could put the issue off no longer, and on September 8, 1925, the council voted ten to three to ban Sunday movies. They also voted seven to five to indefinitely postpone the decision to hold a referendum on the issue.

Another Attempt

It looked like the issue was settled, but Alger and Freeman were not done fighting. In examining the ordinance, they decided that it might be unconstitutional because it listed fines for a first and second offense but had no provisions for violations after that. The theater managers were in the situation they had found themselves before and had to force the issue by opening on Sunday and risk being arrested to bring the issue before the courts. So on Sunday, September 28, 1925, they again opened their doors to the public.

Alger realized he was walking a fine line with the city council and the public and did not want to alienate either group. From editorials at the time, there was a sentiment among much of the public that the theater managers were champions in a populist fight against the authoritarian powers of the protestant ministers and the city council. Alger himself said in the newspapers that, “In our action, there is no intent merely to defy law or antagonize anyone; we are abiding in the majority opinion of the citizenry attested by the packed houses of Sunday. In this belief, we intend to go ahead and test the validity of the ordinance.”

The two managers were again arrested, and after the bond of $50 was paid they were released. On Friday, October 2, the case was brought before Justice Burns who declared the ordinance prohibiting Sunday movies illegal. But this victory by Alger and Freeman was short lived, as later that evening they were arrested on the charge of non-observance of the Sabbath.

This arrest was a result of the second ordinance the ministers had found that might apply to Sunday movies, section 19 chapter 34. The first ordinance, section 19 chapter 90, and the one dealt with in all the proceeding legal actions, specifically listed pool rooms and was expanded to include movie theaters but was stuck down in court. This second ordinance applied to all activities that might be thought of as recreational and was generally thought of as unconstitutional. In addition, it would likely apply to the golf played at the country club on Sundays as well as recreation in the parks and any other recreational activity. Dr. Burres, the mayor of Urbana, stated that if the ordinance was enforceable, it would make Urbana the bluest city in the state; no city would come close to the restrictions on activity on Sunday.

Three days later cooler heads prevailed. At the October 5 city council meeting, the full contingent of alderman voted that the case against the theater managers based on the second ordinance, section 19 chapter 34, should be dropped. However, they did not let up on the attack against Sunday movies. They voted to file both an injunction against the theater managers and an appeal of the legality of the amended first ordinance.

An October 14, 1925 letter to the Editor in the Urbana Courier called for a vote on the issue.

October 17 was the date that the injunction was heard by Judge Boggs. He ruled in favor of the city council and ruled that the movie houses had to be closed Sundays until the appeal to the circuit court could be heard. The Urbana Daily Courier reported that the city streets were strikingly quiet in contrast to the previous Sundays.

On January 27, 1926, the circuit court met and ruled on the Sunday movie ordinance. Judge Elbert Smith found that the ordinance, as written, was in fact illegal and that the fines assessed against the two theater owners were void. The theater owners won again in court, but the city attorney, Mr. Winkleman, vowed that the city council planned to fight on. It was expected that at the next Monday meeting of the city council, the ordinance would be rewritten. Both movie managers said that they would not show movies on the next Sunday, only four days after the circuit court ruled in their favor. They did, however, renew their call for a vote of the citizens in the April 1926 election to decide the issue.

At the February 1, 1926, city council meeting, the issue was not brought up, and no new ordinance preventing Sunday movies was passed. The two theater owners announced on Thursday that they would present shows on the following Sunday because, they claimed, the public was demanding them to. However, at that time there was a small pox epidemic, and the mayor appealed to the owners not to hold the shows to try to help curb the disease. Alger and Freeman voluntarily agreed to the mayor’s request and cancelled the shows for Sunday.

On Monday, February 15, the city council did pass a corrected ordinance prohibiting Sunday movies as well as prohibiting Sunday openings of roller skating rinks and public dance pavilions, similar to the prohibitions on pool houses and bowling alleys being open on Sundays.

One Last Trick

After the six-month fight, the matter seemed closed, but Alger showed an uncanny ability to creatively interpret law. He announced that on Sunday, February 28, 1926, he would open the Colonial Theatre for a free five-minute lecture to be given by George McCaskrin, an Urbana lawyer and a leader against the telephone company’s planned rate hike. After the lectures, Alger would show films. This was all free, but anyone who felt moved to make a donation to cover costs was welcome to do so, and he declared his opening would not violate the law, as no fee would be charged.

Freeman decided the Princess would remain closed but did voice his support by saying he was “entirely in sympathy with Mr. Alger’s move. I believe the people want motion pictures on Sunday, and I believe the theatre will be packed at every performance.” The city council threatened to take action Monday if the theater was open.

The Sunday lecture and movies were very well attended, and it was reported that the Colonial Theatre brought in a record amount of money. Monday’s council meeting came and went without any action on the Sunday movie issue. On the next two Sundays, both movie houses were open, each with a lecture followed by movies, and with a donation bucket by the entrance.

However, after putting up with the lectures for three weeks, on March 15 the city council struck back. At the council meeting Alderman F. D. Kirkpatrick presented a motion to revoke the theater owners’ licenses. Professor Scovill then offered a more moderate proposal to revoke the licenses if they opened the next Sunday. But by then, the goodwill of many of the aldermen was gone. Previously Sunday movie supporters, aldermen Earl Meenach and C. C. Clark had had enough. Mr. Meenach said “We played square with them because we thought they should allow the public the privilege of attending Sunday shows but now they are ignoring our law and trying to make us look foolish.” The council voted eleven to two to revoke the licenses of both Mr. Alger and Mr. Freeman. After the vote, the Reverend Losh of First Methodist Episcopal Church commended the council for the action.

Finally, a Vote

The elected officials on the city council did not want to be too heavy handed. In a special session on March 29, the long-sought public vote was agreed to. A petition that had been circulating for several weeks was presented to the council, and they agreed to add it to the April 20 election. They also reinstated the licenses of the two theater owners on the condition that they both agree not to show any Sunday movies before the election could be held. Both the theater owners readily agreed and did not show any movies on Sundays.

The theater managers and the protestant ministers publicly agreed to abide by the vote, as did the city council. And with the election quickly approaching, both sides started public relations campaigns to sway the voters to their side. The ministers used their weekly sermons to reach their congregations and encouraged their congregations to sway others in the community. The managers targeted students at the University of Illinois, which was located in Urbana, sending Sunday movie supporters to speak with the students in their rooming houses and fraternities. Mr. Alger made plans to transport students to the polls in cars so they would easily be able to cast their votes. Everyone anticipated a record turnout, even though only three of the seven precincts had any challengers for city council.

An editorial from the April 15, 1926 Daily Illini on the Sunday movie issue.

Again the primary issue for many was one of fairness. Many people wrote editorials and the student newspaper, The Daily Illini, wrote opinion pieces stating that regardless of one’s personal desire to see movies on Sunday, they should consider the working class, who often did not have an opportunity to see a movie during the week and watching on Sunday would be their only opportunity. Again, many pointed out how the rich were allowed to play golf and engage in similar recreations on the Sabbath, but the poor were excluded. Students in particular often wrote about the irony that the university golf and tennis courts that students had access to were closed on Sundays, but the university administration who closed these facilities to the students often were members of the Country Club and had the opportunity to play themselves. Momentum was building for a decisive vote to overturn the blue laws and allow Sunday movies.

Five days before the election, the protestant ministers produced a surprise that threatened to drastically turn the election their way. The Federated Church Council of Urbana developed a three-pronged plan to defeat the proponents of Sunday movies. First, it mailed 2,500 letters to Urbana citizens appealing to them to defeat the proposed ordinance. Second, it would hold a mass meeting at 8:00 p.m. the night before the vote. And finally and perhaps most importantly, it would challenge every student’s right to vote who came to the ballot box.

Although students had voted in every election for more than thirty years and the protestant ministers themselves supported student voting in the previous election that had occurred just one week prior where the students voted the ministers’ way on several issues, the ministers suddenly challenged the right of students to vote in any city election.

At that time eligible voters were all citizens over twenty-one years of age who had lived in the state for one year, in the county for ninety days, and in the precinct for thirty days. The protestant ministers claimed that the students did not really live where they resided if they went home during the summer or even if they went home due to illness. A student did not “reside” in Urbana during the school year; they just temporarily stayed there. It wasn’t “home.”

Obviously the students and many townspeople were quite upset about what they saw as actions denying the students of their right to vote. Mr. Alger said, “Until the court rules out University student votes, they are as legal as they have been in past years. When the students voted the way of the church, the church people sought their votes—even last week at the primary election. Now when the church officials find the students will turn against them they want to keep them from voting.”

1. L. Browder, a member of the Federated Church Council of Urbana said, “In all good faith we have sought student votes in the past. Not until this week did we know of the rulings of the courts on such questions and when we did, we changed our views. We will never ask them to vote in the future and now appeal to them to keep themselves out of trouble by not voting if they are not legally entitled to do so.”

Although many students and the theater managers were crying foul, the ministers likely had the law on their side. In an Illinois Supreme Court case from 1925, fifteen student votes at Eureka College in Central Illinois were disallowed when the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the student’s residence was their parent’s house because they received at least part of their financial support from their parents, and a person can have only one “permanent abode,” and that the permanent abode is synonymous with their “residence.”

The day of the election came and was controversial. Students who came to vote were challenged and asked to sign affidavits of legal residence. Most students left before voting when they saw that other students were being challenged and required to sign these affidavits. When the vote was counted, it was the largest city election to date, with 4,522 total votes cast. The vote did not turn out as the theater managers had hoped; it was 2,427 against Sunday movies and 2,095 for. The vote, however, did settle the issue, at least for the time being.

Edward Alger decided he would better direct his energies focusing on theaters he had in LaSalle and Peru, Illinois, and sold the Colonial Theatre. He did not stay away from the Champaign–Urbana market for too long, however. A year later on July 29, 1927, he took over the Urbana Princess Theatre from Freeman.

Sunday Movies: Champaign’s Turn

By July 1928, most of the surrounding communities had passed ordinances allowing Sunday movies. Business leaders in Champaign were becoming concerned about residents traveling to these surrounding towns on Sundays for entertainment. A petition was started and within just a couple days, 2,280 signatures were collected, a significantly larger number then needed to bring the issue to a city-wide referendum. This was submitted to the Champaign city council, which had thirty days to take action on the petition or it would automatically go to a vote of the public.

Again, however, the Ministerial Association quickly mounted opposition to the movement. The Reverend C. M. Stahl chaired the committee to keep the ban on Sunday movies. The association hired Forrest Gore to “frustrate the move by injection or other methods,” the newspapers reported. They held several organizational meetings to plot strategy.

The arguments again focused on an issue of fairness versus morality. James Dunn, the head of the Building Trades Council, a labor union, said “to the laboring man, the question is one involving the furnishings of local entertainment on the only day which he has free to enjoy it when he has not sufficient money or car to take him elsewhere. Those in the city who have cars get out of town on Sunday to enjoy themselves, but there are many people in our group who have no money [to travel to neighboring towns] and have only Sunday to provide entertainment.”

The Reverend Losh, who fought in Urbana successfully to keep the ban on Sunday movies, spoke to the Champaign Ministerial Association and laid out their arguments. Mr. Losh reported that poor people go to the movies during the week and asked “should Sunday also be opened in order that they spend money needed for clothes on entertainment?” and the main point of their argument, “isn’t it unfair to expect the church to keep the moral standing of the future citizens where it should be? Shouldn’t the Lord be given one day out of seven? Today there is little religious education in the home, and it is necessary for the church to provide for them.”

The vote quickly approached. Both sides presented their case in public forums, the newspapers, meetings, and Sunday sermons. Both sides promised to be open and fair, and both sides offered to drive anyone to the polls that needed a ride, regardless of how they intended to vote.

Less than two months after the petitions were circulated, voting was conducted, and the proponents of Sunday movies prevailed by a two to one margin in the election with the largest voter turnout in Champaign had seen. The city of Champaign would join most of its neighbors and allow Sunday movies.

Urbana Follows Suit

A couple days later, on September 1, 1928, Urbana business leaders initiated their own efforts to overturn the ban on Sunday movies following Champaign’s lead. Petitions were circulated to put the issue before the citizens of Urbana by a vote. Within just a couple days, more than twenty-five percent of the legal voters in Urbana had signed the petition.

An ad in the October 19, 1928 Urbana Courier asking for drivers to ferry voters to the polling places.

As in Champaign, this time the fight was much more cordial. Both sides presented their case to the public but did not try to prevent or circumvent the vote. The arguments were largely the same but with the addition that the Urbana business leaders also saying it was a matter of giving Urbana equal rights to Champaign. The ministers focused on a campaign asking voters to “let your conscience be your guide.”

An ad in the Urbana Courier urging citizens to vote for allowing Sunday movies

The vote came quickly, only two months after the petition was first started. On Tuesday, October 23, 1928, the polls were open to answer the question of Sunday movies in Urbana. Turnout was predicted to be small, neither side having mounted much of a campaign to get the citizens engaged in the issue. The majority of voters cast their ballots for allowing Sunday movies, and the city council called a special meeting two days later, on October 25. In that meeting, which lasted only seven minutes, the city council voted to overturn the ordinance that was the result of such a bitter fight only two years previously. With the ordinance overturned the Princess and the Colonial Theatres, both of which were now owned by Alger, showed movies that Sunday, less than a week after the city-wide vote. As with the first film shown illicitly on a Sunday in Urbana, the first “legal” Sunday screening was another that featured Hollywood star Clara Bow. The movie was Red Hair.

: This lobby card advertises the Clara Bow movie the Red Hair, which was the first legally played Sunday movie in Urbana. Collection of the author.

How quickly things had turned. After such a long, hard, drawn out fight just a couple years earlier, Sunday movies were now allowed. Although it may look on the surface that the big fight Alger and Freeman mounted to play Sunday movies was a waste of effort, it likely set the stage and crystalized the arguments for their eventual passage two short years later.

Edward Alger, along with his brother, Harold, went on to manage the Princess which he purchased from Freedman and over 10 other theatres in central Illinois until 1958 when they finally sold their holdings to Karosotes, now known as GKC, a large theater chain still operating multiplexes with over 60 locations. The Princess was later renamed the Cinema and finally closed in 1994. It is now an art gallery, but still sports the “Cinema” marquee from when it was a movie theater.

The Colonial closed soon after the initial Sunday movie war when Edward sold it, but had a brief resurgence again under Alger ownership beginning in 1935 as the Albro Theatre, named for the two Alger Brothers who now managed it. It closed in 1948 and was soon demolished and replaced with a parking lot.

If you find this story fascinating, we have a treasure trove of information about the history of your favorite theatres. Sign up for an account on historictheatres.org and enter through the STAGE DOOR!

For nearly fifty years Theatre Historical Society of America has been celebrating, documenting, and promoting the architectural, cultural, and social relevance of America’s historic theaters. However, we can’t do it alone.  Support from cinema lovers, architects, historians and people like you are paramount to our success.  Become a member today, and help us preserve the rich history of America’s greatest theatres.