The 1916 Controversy Over the Showing of The Birth of a Nation
in Phoenix, Arizona
by Joe Altimus
Summary
In late February 1916, a plan to show The Birth of a Nation
in Phoenix, Arizona was announced. Opposition to the film from
Phoenix's black community convinced the Phoenix city government
(known then as the City Commission) on March 1 to ban the
showing of the film. A few weeks later, the film's distributor
decided to risk a legal battle over the commission's ban, by
scheduling a two week run in Phoenix starting April 30. The
commission likely had second thoughts about banning the film
without seeing it; most of the commissioners viewed it on April
30. At a May 1 meeting, the commission relented on its complete
ban, but still made showing the film conditional on the removal
of a particular scene. However, the film's distributor refused
to make any cut, filed a suit against the commission in the
county superior court on May 2, and continued to show the film.
On May 4 the court upheld the right of the commission to require
the cut. The film's manager and the manager of the Elks Theater
(where the film was being shown) were arrested on May 8 for
violating the commission's order. The two managers pled guilty
the next day, paid a fine and agreed to stop showing the film in
Phoenix. To complete the planned two week run, the distributor
moved the exhibition to Mesa, a neighboring city. In December
1916, the film was making a second run in Arizona. Showings were
announced for Phoenix, but blacks again opposed the film, and
the commission held firm to its requirement for a cut. As a
result, the film did not show in Phoenix at that time. An
examination of the events and participants related to the 1916
Phoenix showing of The Birth of a Nation will contribute more
detail to the discussion of the film's controversy.
Library of Congress Subject Headings:
Birth of a Nation (Motion picture : 1915)
Motion pictures — Censorship — Arizona — Phoenix — History
Warning: This article mentions a 1915 movie with an offensive
racial word in its title.

2
The Birth of a Nation is banned in Phoenix
By February 1916, The Birth of a Nation had shown across much
of the United States, but it had not yet played anywhere in
Arizona. On Monday, February 28, Phoenix newspapers reported
that the film was booked to show for a week in April at the Elks
Theater.1 The Elks was the favored venue in Phoenix for the most
prestigious stage and musical presentations.2 Phoenix filmgoers
were promised the same experience that had entertained audiences
in large cities throughout the United States, including a large
orchestra3 to perform the film's special score, and a large crew
of technicians and projectionists.
Members of Phoenix's black community quickly organized
against the film. Church and civic organizations asked the
Phoenix city government, known then as the City Commission
(consisting of the mayor and four commissioners), to prohibit
the showing of the film. The commission meeting on Wednesday,
March 1 included consideration of the protest against the film.
The commission's minutes record what happened at that part of
the meeting:
Colored people object to Birth of Nation.
A letter from the Colored Methodist Church was read, asking that the showing of the picture lm
known as "The Birth of a Nation" be prohibited in Phoenix. Mrs. White, representing the Colored
Woman's Club, and the Pastor of the Colored Church4, addressed the meeting in support of said
communication.
Commissioner MacBean suggested that this matter be referred to the Board of Censors created by
Ordinance No. 50 (New Series) and that its action be nal. It being pointed out that the Board of
Censors was composed of the members of the City Commission and the City Manager, and all
members thereof being present except the City Manager, Commissioner Corpstein suggested that
some nal action should be taken at this time.
Corpstein then moved, seconded by MacBean, that it be the conclusion of the members of said
Board of Censors present, that the picture entitled "The Birth of A Nation" be not allowed to be
shown in the City of Phoenix. Motion carried unanimously.

The opposition of black Phoenicians to the film needs no
explanation, but the decision of the commission to ban the film
was remarkable, given how widely the film had already shown
across the United States, and how many Phoenicians were eager to
see the film. Some characterization of the supporters of the ban
and the city commission of March 1916 may provide insight into
the banning of the film.
Supporters of the ban

fi

fi

fi

The "Mrs. White" mentioned in the commission minutes was Ella
S. White, president of the Arizona Federation of Colored Women's
Clubs. She was quoted in the Arizona Republican (March 3, page

3
12), explaining what motivated the protest against the film:
"Yes, I started the objection," she admitted. "I asked the co-operation of the C. M. E. [Colored
Methodist Episcopal] church, A. M. E. [African Methodist Episcopal] church, the Baptist church and
the Colored Men's Protective league5, and they joined our clubs in presenting the petition to the city
commission. There was no friction. We did not demand. We asked for the moral support of the
commissioners, and we received it.
"We are working for the uplift of our people. Cannot the public sacri ce its desire to view a
production for the general good? All we ask is for fair play. The terrible effect of that picture, which is
not historically correct, has been demonstrated. It has created prejudice against the colored man. In
Pennsylvania it caused a race riot. Jane Addams has censored it. It has been prohibited in Colorado6
and in Ohio. Governor Willis of Ohio has barred any photo-play that re ects on the character of any
nationality. It means everything to us to keep it out of Phoenix. It does not portray the true character
of the colored man, and it is not right that it should be shown."
The leader of the colored club women says she belongs to a race rejected because of their color.
"We do not ask for social equality -- that has never been our aim -- but in a time like this we want fair
play. We are good citizens, property owners and taxpayers," she said.

fl

fi

Ella White (born Thompson) was then 38 or 39 years old, a
native of Lawrence, Kansas. Her father, Nelson Thompson, was a
Civil War veteran of the 79th Regiment of the United States
Colored Infantry. Ella married George White in Kansas in 1899
and the couple lived in Kansas and Colorado before moving to
Phoenix by 1906 with their two children. Mrs. White was very
active in church and civic activities in Phoenix. The Arizona
Federation of Colored Women’s Clubs was organized in August
1915, with Ella White as its president.
Another supporter of the ban, Charles G. Johnson, wrote a
note of thanks that was published in both the Arizona Gazette
(March 3) and the Arizona Republican (March 4). In that note,
Johnson, on behalf of the Colored Voters League, specifically
thanked Mayor George Young for his part in banning the film.
Charles G. Johnson was a 45 year old laborer at the Federal
Building7 in Phoenix. He was a native of Kansas, who had lived in
Chicago in the early 1900s before arriving in Phoenix by 1910.
Johnson's letter prompted a response (published in the
Arizona Republican on March 4) by Ella White, her husband George
White, William P. Crump, and Robert Hudson, claiming to speak
for the "big majority of colored people of Phoenix," and
asserting that there was no "Colored Voters League" and that
Johnson's letter was an attempt by "ring politicians"8 to gain
political advantage from the commission's decision to ban the
film.
In addition to the March 4 group response to Johnson, Ella
White and William P. Crump also had individual letters published
in the Arizona Republican. Ella White emphasized in her brief
letter that the protest to the city commission was not meant to
be used as a "political issue" and that the Women’s Clubs'

4
protest was "acting for uplift and morality, peace in the
community."
William P. Crump's long letter made a number of points,
starting with mention of well known events (public disturbances,
censorings) from the previous year of controversy over the film.
He went on to defend the commission’s decision to ban the film
without seeing it: "the city authorities of Phoenix need no
phantom of optical necessity to urge them to do their duty."
Crump also compared people who wanted to see The Birth of a
Nation to those who had a taste for other recent films that he
viewed as immoral, including Damaged Goods and Hypocrites.9 In a
postscript, Crump wrote that although many blacks would vote to
re-elect Mayor Young (a Republican), he was going to vote for
Peter Corpstein (a Democrat).
William P. Crump was then a 40 year old native of West
Virginia. He moved to Phoenix in the late 1890s and became a
successful wholesale produce merchant. He was an outspoken
critic of public school segregation that was instituted in
Phoenix in 1910; he incurred the expense of sending his
daughters to a parochial Catholic school instead of sending them
to the segregated public schools. Crump was an active political
supporter of Republican candidates in Arizona throughout his
life. His public support for Corpstein, a Democrat, was notable.
Crump's letter regarding The Birth of a Nation was not his
first published protest of a film. About a year earlier (June 5,
1915), he had a letter published in the Arizona Republican
objecting to showing of the film The Nigger10 in Phoenix. That
film depicts the story of a Southern politician who is
discovered to have African ancestry. Another black Phoenix
businessman, Frank Smith, had a similar protest letter published
the next day in the Arizona Republican. Protests by the black
Phoenix community to the city commission against The Nigger were
reported in the June 4, 1915 Arizona Republican, and the
commission enacted an ordinance establishing a Board of Censors
that day.11 However, no censorship action was taken by city
government against The Nigger, and it showed at the Lamara
Theatre on Sunday and Monday, June 6-7, 1915. Who were the
members of the Phoenix City Commission that did not censor The
Nigger in June 1915, but did censor The Birth of a Nation nine
months later in March 1916?
The Phoenix City Commission
Commissioners Corpstein and MacBean are specifically
mentioned in the commission minutes regarding the banning of The
Birth of a Nation.

5

Peter Corpstein was then a 58 year old businessman in the
lumber and building materials trade, elected in 1914 to a term
on the commission. He was a native of California, who moved to
Arizona about 1880. At that time, he began working for a lumber
and building materials business located in Tombstone, the L. W.
Blinn Company.12 He returned to California in the early 1890s,
still working for Blinn. By 1893, he was living in Tempe,
Arizona and managing Blinn's lumber yard in that city. In late
1896 he became manager of Blinn's lumber yard in Phoenix and
relocated his family there. When the Valley Lumber Company was
organized in 1898, he joined it, managing its business in
Phoenix. He was president of Valley Lumber by late 1911, when it
acquired all of L. W. Blinn's interests in the Phoenix area.
Keeping in mind that Phoenix city government had been
nonpartisan since 1914, Corpstein was the only Democrat on the
city commission at this point.
George N. MacBean was then a 40 year old pharmacist and
businessman, elected in 1915 to a term on the commission. He was
a native of Michigan. He and his wife settled in Arizona about
1907. In keeping with the nonpartisan nature of Phoenix city
government at that time, MacBean emphasized in his 1915 campaign
that he intended to serve independent of any party. In wider
politics, he affiliated as a Republican, specifically supporting
the Progressive faction of that party.
The vote for the ban on the film was unanimous, so some
characterization of the rest of the commission may be useful.
Joseph Cope was then a 72 year old real estate investor,
elected to a term on the commission in 1914. He was a native of
Illinois and Civil War veteran. He married about 1874 and
eventually settled in Arizona about 1892. He farmed in the
Phoenix area, and also held mining interests elsewhere in the
state. He sold his interest in the Magma Mine (near Superior)
for a large sum. He was a member of the Valley Realty and Trust
Company, with heavy investment in properties in the Phoenix
area. He served on the Salt River Valley Water Users’
Association from 1911 to 1913. When he ran for the city
commission in 1914, he was endorsed by the Good Government
League and the Arizona Republican. He was affiliated with the
Republican party.
Oscar T. Richey was then a 44 year old lawyer, elected in
1915 to a term on the commission. He was a native of Girard,

6
Kansas who settled in Pima County, Arizona about 1898 and
married in 1902. He worked as an accountant, but also held
several elected positions in Pima County from 1905 to 1911. In
March 1912 he moved to Phoenix to serve in a federal government
position as the Assistant to U. S. District Attorney Morrison.
He held that appointment through March 1914, after which he
practiced law in Phoenix. He was affiliated with the Republican
party.
George U. Young was then the 49 year old mayor of Phoenix,
elected in 1914. He was a native of Indiana, but relocated to
Kansas in 1879 with his parents. He studied law and was admitted
to the bar in Kansas in 1888. He practiced law for a couple of
years before moving to Arizona in 1890 and marrying in 1900. He
worked at times as a bookkeeper, railroad fireman and engineer,
and newspaper publisher in Williams and other northern Arizona
towns. By 1904 he had acquired various mining interests and
turned his focus to them. His involvement in Republican politics
in Arizona led U. S. President Taft to appoint him Secretary of
the Territory in 1909, a position he held until statehood in
February 1912. He favored the Progressive faction of the
Republican party and ran unsuccessfully as the Progressive Party
candidate for Arizona Governor in fall 1914.13
Lacking direct statements from the commission members about
their motives in banning the film, the sketches above suggest
some factors to consider: All five had been born and raised in
states that had been part of the Union in the Civil War. The
oldest commissioner, Cope, had fought for the Union in that war.
Commissioner Richey and Mayor Young had spent considerable time
in Kansas, a state that had a complete ban on the showing of The
Birth of a Nation. All but one of the commissioners was a
Republican, a party which then traditionally received the
electoral support of black voters.14 Perhaps some of the
commissioners were sympathetic to the moral arguments that Ella
White and others made against the film. Still, with no direct
evidence of what motivated the commission to ban the film, it is
a mystery why the commission chose to ignore the large number of
Phoenicians who wanted to see it.
Supporters of the film
Both Phoenix newspapers published editorials critical of the
ban on the film. The Arizona Republican started its criticism
with charges that the ban was politically motivated:

7
There is a rather ugly report that the city commission in ordering the suppression of the "Birth of a
Nation," was in uenced by the near approach of the city primaries and election. One member who
voted for the ordinance, and all of them voted for it, is said to have been asked why this summary
action was taken, without observing the terms of the ordinance which make the mayor and
commission a board of censors.15 And this member is said to have replied that there are about 700
colored voters in the city.16 While the answer does not seem to have been entirely responsive, it is
fully explanatory.17

Both the Arizona Republican (March 3) and the Arizona Gazette
(March 4) editorials made the point that the majority of
Phoenicians wanted to see the film, and that the black opponents
of the film were wrong in thinking the film was a reflection of
the current condition of their race. The Arizona Republican also
made the claim that there was no reason to believe the film
would provoke race prejudice in Phoenix because
Phoenix is essentially a northern town. There is little or no race prejudice here to be excited. The
colored people of Phoenix are orderly and live on friendly terms with their white neighbors.

The editor's claim of no race prejudice in Phoenix in 1916
was made even though public schools in Phoenix had been
segregated in 1910, and many other public facilities and
accommodations were segregated. The editor takes the need for
racial segregation for granted. Race prejudice in whites is
understood as a function of how "orderly" and "friendly" blacks
are in Phoenix. The Arizona Republican editor observed that
Much more likely to excite race prejudice than this picture, is the action of the commission, in the
circumstances, in proscribing it when so many people had been looking forward to its presentation.

The Arizona Republican published just one letter to the
editor that was critical of the city commission's ban of the
film. S. B. McCormick was mainly concerned with pointing out
that the film had played in Texas (and had not been banned there
as the Republican March 3 editorial had claimed), but also added
that he felt that "every true American is helped" by seeing the
film, and hoped that it would play in Phoenix.
Political aspects of the controversy

fl

The ban on the film occurred just three days before a City of
Phoenix primary election on Saturday, March 4, for mayor and two
commissioners. Was the ban politically motivated, as charged in
the Arizona Republican editorial? Commissioners Cope and
Corpstein were finishing their two year terms, and did not seek
reelection. Cope's age (72) may have influenced his decision.
Corpstein sought election as mayor.

8
In the March 4 primary vote, Frank Woods received a majority
of the total votes cast and thereby won outright one of the
commissioner seats. James A. Jones and Claud W. Cisney were the
leading vote-getters among those who did not receive a majority.
They qualified for the general election on April 4 to decide the
remaining commission seat. No mayoral candidate received a
majority of votes, so the top two vote recipients, Peter
Corpstein and incumbent George U. Young qualified as the mayoral
candidates in the general election.
A March 6 Arizona Republican editorial analyzed the mayoral
primary election:
A surprising result was the vote for Mayor Young, much smaller than that cast for Mr. Corpstein.
But twenty-four hours before the election the slump from the mayor began to be noticeable. It
resulted from the passage of the ordinance interdicting "The Birth of a Nation." Though the records
do not show that the mayor was more active than Mr. Corpstein in the passage of that ordinance -- in
fact, it was Mr. Corpstein who brought about immediate action on it -- the opponents of the mayor
succeeded in placing the onus of honor (?) on the mayor and immediately his supporters began
turning away from him in shoals.
It was not that the voters cared particularly for "The Birth of a Nation." Probably not one in fty felt
the slightest interest in the picture but they interpreted the passage of the ordinance to be a voteattracting device, and thus came about such a thing in another form, as the proscription of the
picture was ostensibly intended to avert -- a sharp racial clash. The clash took place at the primary
instead of at a theater.

fi

The Arizona Gazette, on the other hand, published no reports
or editorials suggesting that the banning of the film had any
effect on the primary election. The Arizona Republican's
contention that voters were disenchanted with Mayor Young
because he supported the ban of the film is hard to credit
because his opponent, Corpstein, was known to have championed
the ban. It seems more likely that voters made their choices for
reasons other than how the mayor and commission had acted in
banning The Birth of a Nation.
Rather than the Republican editor's interpretation, it seems
more likely that the primary election result was caused by
factionalism in the Republican party at that time. Incumbent
Mayor Young was associated with the Progressive faction of the
party, while another mayoral candidate, Harry Kay, a successful
real estate businessman, was associated with the more
traditional elements of the party. Adding up the votes of Young
and Kay in the March 4 primary gives a "Republican" total that
is over 300 more than Peter Corpstein (a Democrat) received.
Another feature of party factionalism was the political
spoils system in Phoenix city government, in which both the
mayor and commissioners asserted the right to make appointments
to city jobs. W. A. Farris had challenged the spoils system
after his appointment as city manager in 1914, but the mayor and

9
commissioners had reasserted their favoritism rights by firing
Farris in spring 1915.18 The vote split between Young and Kay on
March 4 may in part have reflected competing Republican party
factions.
It is notable that the Republican had failed in 1914 to get
voters to back the mayoral candidate it endorsed, E. W. Lewis.
The newspaper had promoted Lewis' legal experience as
particularly important, but voters had chosen George U. Young
instead. For the 1916 election, a February 23 Republican
editorial stated that none of the candidates for Phoenix mayor
met its criteria for leading the city and made no endorsement.
The Republican in the mid-1910s can be characterized as opposing
any politician it viewed as a proponent of "political
machines" (whether Democrat or Republican). The newspaper’s
preference was for government run by men with business
experience, who were primarily concerned with efficient
operation of government. The March 4 election would have been an
opportunity for the Republican editor to attribute Young's
weaker electoral support to factions (Traditional versus
Progressive) within the Republican party or in-fighting over the
political spoils system, but that would have been a political
mistake to admit intra-party conflict or that a spoils system
existed. Instead the editor opted for the analysis that voters
were reacting to the ban on the film. [Note that the editor’s
statement that "not one in fifty felt the slightest interest in
the picture" contradicts an earlier Republican March 4 editorial
which claimed that a "very large percentage of the people of
Phoenix and the Salt River valley are anxious to see the great
motion picture."]
There was no further mention of the film in the next few
weeks in either Phoenix newspaper.19 However, the Republican
front page on April 1 carried a large story about a voter
registration scandal in Phoenix, involving a black former
janitor at City Hall, Fred Gardiner. The Republican's story of a
colony of fraudulent voters in Phoenix was countered later that
day by a story in the Gazette that there was no foundation for
reports of a voter fraud scheme in Phoenix. Indeed, while
Gardiner was charged with illegally procuring the registration
of an 18 year old (voting age was 21 at that time), he was found
not guilty of that charge and no others were charged with voter
fraud.20
The Phoenix general election was held on Tuesday, April 4.
Corpstein was elected mayor (with just over 55% of the vote).
James A. Jones won the other commissioner seat (with 56% of the
vote). The Gazette ran an editorial the next day stating that
all the candidates were of high quality, so the editors of the

10
Gazette saw no need to endorse particular candidates. Neither
the Gazette nor the Republican made any remarks regarding the
banning of The Birth of a Nation in regard to the April 4
election.
Corpstein's support for the ban on the film likely won him
additional black voters (such as William P. Crump), but they did
not supply Corpstein with his margin of victory. Most black
voters lived on the east side of Phoenix, in the third and
fourth wards. Corpstein's winning margin of 140 votes in the
first and second wards showed that he had the support of the
majority of white voters in Phoenix.21 Corpstein's electoral
success as a Democrat did not translate to other Democrats. All
four city wards supported the Republican-associated candidates
for commissioner.
The Republican editor on April 5 offered no analysis of
Young’s loss to Corpstein, only commenting that the commission
in the recent two years had accomplished "very little of value
to the people and taxpayers of Phoenix." The banning of The
Birth of a Nation received no mention. Instead, the editor urged
the authorities to investigate the charges of false registration
and illegal voting that had recently been made. For the
Republican editor, the political relevance of the banning of the
film had passed.
The film begins to show in Arizona
Elliott & Sherman, the film corporation with distribution
rights for The Birth of a Nation in Arizona, had encountered
opposition to the film in other states many times in recent
months. The distributor typically succeeded in countering
opposition, using legal channels when necessary to exhibit the
film. Elliott & Sherman followed the same plan in Arizona. When
the start of the film's Arizona run was announced for Bisbee,
The Bisbee Daily Review reported on April 1 that the city
council had "adopted a resolution empowering the mayor to take
such steps as might be necessary to prevent its exhibition in
Bisbee." Bisbee Mayor Adams was quoted:
The negro race should be protected from the exhibition of pictures of this kind. It is not fair to them
in any sense of the word. I do not believe in allowing anything to be shown which would tend to stir
up race prejudice.

But nothing further was reported regarding a ban and the film
opened in Bisbee on April 13. However, a few cases of spinal
meningitis in the area at that time caused local health
officials to close all theaters in the area starting April 14 to

11
prevent spread of the disease. As a result, the film's run in
Bisbee lasted just one day instead of the planned four days. The
film's start in Tucson was moved up two days, from April 17 to
April 15.
On Sunday, April 16 the Arizona Republican reported that Ed
Redmond, who had been working to book the film at the Elks
Theater in Phoenix, had retained an attorney to fight the
commission's ban on the film. On Tuesday, April 18, both Phoenix
newspapers reported that The Birth of a Nation had been booked
to show for two weeks at the Elks Theater, starting Sunday,
April 30.
The film showed in Tucson eight days, from Saturday, April 15
to Saturday, April 22. The Tucson Citizen commented on the final
day of the Tucson run that The Birth of a Nation had drawn
"small houses" in that city, and lamented that Tucsonians
apparently did not understand what a great film it was. The
Arizona run of the film continued in Miami on Monday and
Tuesday, April 24-25. It then moved nearby to Globe, where the
film showed Wednesday to Friday, April 26-28. Globe was the last
venue for the film before its run in Phoenix.
Meanwhile, a local Civil War veterans organization, the
Arizona Encampment of the Grand Army of the Republic, held its
annual meeting in Phoenix on April 19, at which a resolution was
passed condemning The Birth of a Nation and urging the Phoenix
city government to do what it could to prohibit its showing in
the city. A notice of that resolution was published in the
Arizona Republican on April 22.22 On April 24, opponents of the
film held a meeting at the African Methodist Episcopal church in
Phoenix to discuss how they could prevent its showing there. The
attendees (mostly black) were counseled, however, by Phoenix
Mayor George U. Young, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge
Rawleigh Stanford23, diplomat and Civil War veteran Archibald J.
Sampson24, attorney B. E. Marks and black merchant William P.
Crump to let the Phoenix Board of Censors make its determination
and abide by its decision.
While the Arizona run of the film had been less than ideal so
far (cancelled dates in Bisbee, smaller than anticipated
audiences in Tucson), the distributors likely expected that they
would prevail in court if necessary, and have a successful two
week run in Phoenix. The Phoenix newspapers in late April
reported great anticipation for the coming of the film.
The Arizona Republican reported on Saturday, April 29 that
outgoing Mayor Young and most of the commissioners favored a
reappraisal of the earlier ban of the film, while Mayor-elect
Corpstein and at least one other member of the Board of Censors
(which in addition to the mayor and commissioners, included the

12
City Manager and Chief of Police) favored maintaining the ban.
The newspaper speculated that even if the outgoing mayor and
commission decided to overturn the ban after viewing the film on
April 30, the new mayor and commission could decide to reinstate
the ban the next day when they took office. The potential for
legal action was high.
The Board of Censors reconsiders the film
It appears that the commission decided by late April that it
should reconsider the matter of The Birth of a Nation and give a
judgment on the film after having seen it. Most of the Board of
Censors members attended one of the showings of the film on
Sunday, April 30.
Peter Corpstein, James A. Jones and Frank Woods were sworn in
as the new mayor and commissioners on Monday morning, May 1.
After discussion in the late morning and early afternoon that
day, the commission, acting as the Board of Censors, issued an
order that the film could be shown if the following portion
"which portrays an attempted assault by a negro upon a white
girl" was omitted. Specifically
so much of the play as does portray such attempted assault beginning with the preparation of the
young girl to go to the spring for a bucket of water and ending with the scenes showing her body
lying in the living room of her home, (the purpose being to eliminate the character of the girl from the
play from the time she makes preparation for her visit to the spring) should be omitted; that with such
omission the play is not so objectionable in other respects as to require its suppression.25

The board's order was drawn up and delivered to the chief of
police, who delivered it to the manager of the film, Walter T.
Murphy, at the office of his attorney, George Purdy Bullard.26
City Attorney Richard E. Sloan27 advised Murphy that the Monday
afternoon showing of the film, which was already underway (it
began at 2:15 p.m.), could proceed, but a Monday evening showing
of the film would violate the board's order. Murphy issued
statements to the press that the film had never been cut and
never would be. He pointed out that the musical score was timed
in accordance with the images of the film, so alteration of the
images would necessitate changes in the score. Such
modifications to suit local tastes would be impractical.
A court considers the matter
On Tuesday morning, May 2, George Purdy Bullard, representing
the film's distributors, Elliot & Sherman, secured a temporary
injunction from Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Rawleigh C.

13
Stanford to restrain the Phoenix mayor, city commissioners, city
manager and chief of police from interfering with the exhibition
of the film. Bullard’s request to the court pointed out that the
board's order cited City Charter Ordinance 50, which had been
repealed in favor of Ordinance 99 in January 1916. However, the
board had quickly recognized that error and reissued the order
on Tuesday morning to cite the proper current ordinance. [For
those interested in the details of Bullard’s legal argument, see
the Appendix for a transcription of his filing with the court.]
A hearing on whether to make the injunction permanent was
held in superior court on Thursday afternoon, May 4. Judge
Stanford found that the Phoenix Board of Censors was a legal
institution with the right to censor, and the court had no
jurisdiction in the matter.28 The injunction was dissolved, and
the film distributors were again under threat of arrest if they
exhibited the film Thursday evening.
The Arizona Republican reported that at the superior court
hearing that afternoon, "a large delegation of colored men and
women" occupied one side of the court room. When representatives
(A. E. Jones and unspecified others) of the Elliot & Sherman
Film Corporation, entered the court room,
[i]t was noticeable that the representatives of the Film corporation without any thought to the matter
walked in the court room and seated themselves by the side of the colored men directly responsible
for the court proceedings while the usual court spectators after an hasty glance about the room
segregated themselves.29

The newspaper appears to make a point that the representatives
of the film distributor showed no animosity toward the opponents
of the film. The film’s representatives were acting solely to
assert the company’s right to exhibit the film. The newspaper
also pointed out that while the board could arrest and fine
those who violated its order, it had no power to actually
prevent the presentation of the film itself.
Exhibition of the film in Phoenix is stopped
In spite of the court ruling in favor of the Board of
Censors, The Birth of a Nation continued to show in its
entirety, a fact that was pointed out in newspaper ads for the
film. Afternoon and evening shows continued Friday, Saturday and
Sunday (a Republican ad for the film on Monday claimed that
2,000 had seen it on Sunday). The Sunday, May 7 Arizona
Republican entertainment section editor characterized the events
up to that point:

14
The city commission in company with the city manager and chief of police were forced by the
clamor of several negroes to ask that a section of the picture be eliminated. The management of the
picture demonstrated to the censors, that the cutting would irreparably injure the picture, and
declined to take any action. No arrests have been made, and the statement of those in charge, that
nothing would be eliminated remains unsullied.

The entertainment editor also wrote that:
The hysterical statement put forward that the picture would cause race riots has been proven false.
After a full week's showing, there yet remains to be one case of a negro being in any way insulted. In
fact no reports of derogatory statements in regard to the colored race have been made. The white
people who have seen the picture have left the theater too overawed with the sublimeness and
[colossal] size of the spectacle to even think about [libeling] the negro.

However, on Monday morning, May 8, arrest warrants were
issued for A. E. Jones, manager for the film's distributor, and
William Freyer, manager of the Elks Theater. The Arizona
Republican reported that prosecution had been delayed because
City Attorney Richard E. Sloan had been out of town for a few
days.30 Chief of Police Brisbois served the warrant on Freyer and
brought him to the police station. A. E. Jones turned himself in
at the police station, accompanied by his attorney, George Purdy
Bullard. Both Freyer and Jones were granted bail and ordered to
appear for a preliminary hearing on Tuesday before City
Magistrate McBride. Showing of the film continued Monday
afternoon and evening. Jones made a statement to the press that
the film would only be shown in its entirety or not at all.
The May 8 Monday evening show was the final one in Phoenix.
Both Jones and Freyer pled guilty on Tuesday to one count of
violating the board's order and were each fined $50. Both had
faced seven counts of violating the order, for each showing of
the film after the superior court injunction had been dissolved
the previous Thursday afternoon. However, City Attorney Sloan
had agreed to prosecute on just one count if Jones and Freyer
would agree not to show the film any more in Phoenix.
The Arizona Republican, in summarizing the events of the
film's run in Phoenix, reported that it had played to record
breaking audiences at the Elks. The Phoenix run of The Birth of
a Nation, though abbreviated, had been a financial success for
the film's distributor and the local Elks Theater management.
Mesa welcomes The Birth of a Nation
The film's run in the area was not over, however. William
Menhennet, proprietor of the Majestic Theater31 in nearby Mesa,
Arizona, had approached the film's management about moving the
show to Mesa if the Phoenix run were shortened. The Majestic was

15
a much smaller theater than the Elks, and had a smaller stage,
but Menhennet was able to secure the use of a larger venue, the
Mesa Opera House.32 An agreement was made for exhibiting the film
there. The Arizona Republican noted that Mesa was the smallest
town in the country to that point to host a run of the film.33
The scenery and equipment for the film were trucked over to Mesa
on Wednesday afternoon, May 10 and an evening show was presented
that day, as well as two shows on Thursday, May 11.34
Mesa High School had a previous reservation of the Mesa Opera
House for Friday, May 12, so the film had to be presented at the
Majestic Theater that day. [It is unclear if a smaller orchestra
was used or other reductions were made to suit the smaller
venue.] An afternoon showing of the film at the Majestic Theater
on Saturday, May 13 completed the film's first run in the area.
The film moved on to a single day showing in Prescott, then a
run in Nevada.
A second 1916 Arizona run of the film
A second run of The Birth of a Nation in Arizona in late 1916
was a much smaller scale presentation at reduced prices (but
still higher than normal) and without a special orchestra that
toured with the film. It played a wider range of cities and
towns, including Flagstaff and Williams. The Sunday, December
10, 1916 Arizona Republican reported that a three day run of the
film was booked for the Columbia Theater in Phoenix, starting
December 17. The Arizona Federation of Colored Women's Clubs
protested to the Phoenix City Commission on Wednesday morning,
December 13. Mayor Corpstein responded that the commission's
censorship order was still in effect.
Ella S. White was quoted in the Arizona Gazette:
"We, the negroes are not asking for equality with the white race," said Mrs. White, in an address in
person. "I saw the 'Birth of a Nation.' White men near me were talking about it. One said, 'He ought
to be lynched,' referring to the negro in the picture, and another said, 'The whole race ought to be
lynched.'
"It is not for us older negroes that we make this protest," Mrs. White continued.
"We make it for the younger people of both races. Many here have never lived in the south; they
do not understand the feeling existing there. We want no intermarriage with the white race. We have
been submissive to the white man and with this race we wish to live in peace. The scene in the
picture is untrue to conditions existing in the south. We ask that it not be shown here."35

On that same day, the City Commission served a notice to the
manager of the Columbia, George Mauk, that showing the film was
still conditional on the removal of the scene showing a black
man’s assault on a white girl. Mauk decided it was not worth a
court battle to show the entire film, and so he cancelled the

16
booking of the film. Phoenicians had to travel to Mesa again to
see the film during its brief second 1916 run.36
The effect of the ban
The Arizona Republican had reported on Saturday, May 13 (page
7) that a musical stage production, The Passing Show of 1915,
scheduled for the Elks Theater in October, had been cancelled.
The report attributed the cancellation to the banning of The
Birth of a Nation and predicted a “theater famine” for Phoenix
in the coming season. The Republican’s entertainment editor
echoed that in his column on Sunday, May 14, writing that the
censoring of The Birth of a Nation had given Phoenix a
reputation as a risky spot for road shows.
However, no evidence is found that the banning of the movie
had a noticeable impact on the number and type of “road shows”
that appeared in Phoenix in the next season. That season
included a March 3, 1917 performance of the play Cousin Lucy at
the Elks, starring the famous female impersonator, Julian
Eltinge. Cousin Lucy with Eltinge had a successful run on
Broadway for several weeks in fall 1915. The play had a very
successful week long run in Los Angeles after the single Phoenix
performance. Other stage productions that played both Los
Angeles and Phoenix in spring 1917 included The Happy Stranger37
and Hello, Hawaii.
It is also notable that the 1915 film The Nigger had a return
showing at the Lamara Theater on June 17, 1916, just a little
over a month after exhibition of The Birth of a Nation had been
stopped in Phoenix. The Phoenix black community, as a follow up
to the Birth of a Nation protests, could have publicly opposed
that showing, but there were no such newspaper reports or
mention of any protest in the minutes of the Phoenix City
Commission. It appears that The Birth of a Nation was unique in
its ability to generate controversy about a film in Phoenix in
the late 1910s.38
It also appears that The Birth of a Nation was unique in its
ability to move the Phoenix city government to censor a public
show. In the next five years, the only mention of an action by
the Board of Censors in the Arizona Republican was a May 5, 1920
report (Section Two, page 10) that the board had previewed The
Tong Man39 and passed it.
The ban is quietly overturned
The ban appears to have been untested in 1917, as no reports
of attempts to show The Birth of a Nation in Phoenix are found

17
in newspapers that year. However, the manager of the Columbia
booked it again in March 1918. The Arizona Federation of Colored
Women's Clubs appealed to the Phoenix City Commission on
Wednesday, March 13 to stop the exhibition.40 The commission
assured the women that the previous order from spring 1916 was
still in effect unless the commission decided to repeal or
rescind that order. The commission's meeting minutes do not
record further action on the matter. Peter Corpstein was
campaigning at that time to be re-elected as mayor, in a tight,
highly contentious race against Commissioner Frank Woods.41 In
any case, the film was shown at the Columbia from Sunday, March
31 to Wednesday, April 3. There is no evidence with which to
assess why the ban on the film was lifted.
The Birth of a Nation showed again at the Columbia (at normal
25 cent prices), Thursday-Saturday, February 20-22, 1919. A
final one day showing at the Columbia occurred on Wednesday,
October 20, 1920.

18
Tables
Table. Phoenix Primary Election Results, March 4, 1916 for mayor
(no candidate receives a majority, so Corpstein and Young
qualify for the General Election)42

Candidate

1st Ward
1st
Precinct

1st Ward
2nd
Precinct

2nd
Ward
1st
Precinct

2nd
Ward
2nd
Precinct

3rd Ward

4th Ward

Total

Peter
Corpstein

279

246

272

212

280

208

1497

George U.
Young

187

233

230

172

127

72

1021

Harry Kay

127

161

244

122

122

55

831

E.
Johnson

16

43

14

16

29

17

135

Table. Phoenix Primary Election Results, March 4, 1916 for City
Commissioner (two seats: Frank Woods receives a majority and is
elected to one seat; Jones and Cisney qualify for the General
Election for the other open seat)

Candidate

1st
Ward
1st
Precinct

1st
Ward
2nd
Precinct

2nd
Ward
1st
Precinct

2nd
Ward
2nd
Precinct

3rd Ward

4th Ward

Total

Frank
Woods

368

387

417

320

435

271

2198

James A.
Jones

261

308

411

244

172

82

1478

Claud W.
Cisney

288

230

261

178

278

237

1472

F. H.
Keddington

95

155

115

96

98

45

604

J. C. Gibbs

87

132

95

111

83

26

534

Benjamin T.
Gillett

93

104

189

69

39

23

517

Table. Phoenix Primary Election Results, March 4, 1916: total
votes cast and by ward/precinct (nearly 4,900 voters were

19
registered for the election)

Total

1st Ward
1st
Precinct

1st Ward
2nd
Precinct

2nd Ward
1st
Precinct

2nd Ward
2nd
Precinct

3rd Ward

4th Ward

3560

625

692

770

530

577

366

Table. Phoenix General Election Results, April 4, 1916 for
Mayor43

Candidate

1st Ward
1st
Precinct

1st Ward
2nd
Precinct

2nd
Ward
1st
Precinct

2nd
Ward
2nd
Precinct

3rd Ward

4th Ward

Total

Peter
Corpstein

447

373

482

337

428

288

2355

George U.
Young

359

446

393

301

270

150

1919

Table. Phoenix General Election Results, April 4, 1916 for City
Commissioner (one seat)

Candidate

1st Ward
1st
Precinct

1st Ward
2nd
Precinct

2nd
Ward
1st
Precinct

2nd
Ward
2nd
Precinct

3rd Ward

4th Ward

Total

James A.
Jones

416

508

531

408

346

169

2378

Claud W.
Cisney

354

307

352

232

353

266

1864

Table. Phoenix General Election Results, April 4, 1916: total
votes cast by ward/precinct

Total

1st Ward
1st
Precinct

1st Ward
2nd
Precinct

2nd Ward
1st
Precinct

2nd Ward
2nd
Precinct

3rd Ward

4th Ward

4356

811

833

896

650

710

456

20

Appendix. Amended complaint filed May 3, 1916 by Elliott &
Sherman Film Corporation versus City of Phoenix Board of
Censors. [From Superior Court file number C9236; transcribed
line-by-line with some corrections]
[Page 1.]
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
MARICOPA.
Amended COMPLAINT
ELLIOTT & SHERMAN FILM CORPORATION,
a corporation,
Plaintiff
vs
P. CORPSTEIN FRANK WOODS GEO.N.MACBEAN
JAMES A. JONES O. T. RICHIE ROBERT
CRAIG GEO. O. BRISBOIS, comprising a
BOARD OF CENSORS of the CITY OF PHOENIX
STATE OF ARIZONA. P. Corpstein, Frank
Woods, Geo. N. Mac Bean, James A. Jones,
O. T. Richie, comprising the City Commission of the City of Phoenix and Robert
Craig, City Manager of the City of Phoenix,
Geo. O. Brisbois, City Marshall of the City
of Phoenix,
Defendants.
Plaintiff complains and alleges.
I.
That complainant is a corporation duly organized
and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of
Minnesota and is the owner of the rights to produce, present
and exhibit in the City of Phoenix and State of Arizona, a
certain moving picture film known and designated as "The Birth
of a Nation", that the defendants, P. Corpstein, Frank Woods,
Geo. N. Mac Bean, James A. Jones, O. T. Richie, Geo. O. Brisbois,
and Robert Craig claim to be and call themselves a Board of Censors
under and by virtue of the provisions of the Ordinance No. 99
New Series of the City of Phoenix, that the defendants, P. Corpstein,
Frank Woods, Geo. N. Mac Bean, Jas. A. Jones, O. T. Richie are the
duly elected, qualified and acting City Commissions of the City
of Phoenix, that the defendant Robert Craig is the duly appointed,
qualified and acting City Manager of the City of Phoenix, that the
said Geo. O. Brisbois is the duly appointed, qualified and acting
Chief of Police of the City of Phoenix, State of Arizona, and that
it is the duty of the said defendants to enforce the Ordinances
[end of Page 1.]

21
[Page 2.]
of the said City of Phoenix and especially those Ordinances
relating to the regulation of theatres, shows and places of
amusement and to direct and enforce the violation of any
Ordinances relating the regulation or prohibition of
theatres, shows and places of amusement in the City of Phoenix.
II.
That upon the 20th day of December, 1915, the
City Commissioners of the City of Phoenix, duly passed and
published a certain Ordinance known and designated as Ordinance
No. 99 New Series, that said Ordinance is not now in force and
that said defendants, P. Corpstein, Frank Woods, Geo. N. Mac Bean,
Jas. A. Jones, O. T. Richie, Geo. O. Brisbois and Robert Craig
pretend to set and claim to act as a Board of Censors of the City
of Phoenix under and by virtue of the provisions of said Ordinance.
III.
That said Ordinance is unlawful, illegal and void in
that the same constitute an unlawful delegation of powers judicial
and legislative to said Board of Censors in that the powers
judicial and legislative conferred upon said Board of Censors by
said Ordinance properly belong to and appertain to the City Commissioners of the City of Phoenix under and by virtue of the provisions
of Sub-Section 31, Sec. H, Chapter 4, of the City Charter of the
City of Phoenix, which reads as follows:
"To license, regulate, restrain or prohibit
all theatres, exhibitions, public shows, dance
halls, games and places of amusement; to prevent
all description of gambling and the using of any
and all kinds of gambling devices or fraudulent
devices, and the provide for the destruction of all
such devices."
That under said provisions of said City Charter
the sole power to regulate, restrain and prohibit all theatres,
exhibitions, public shows, and places of amusement is vested in
the City Commission and that any delegation of said powers to a
so called Board of Censors is unlawful, illegal and void and in
contravention of the City Charter of the City of Phoenix.
IV.
[end of Page 2.]
[Page 3.]
That the said defendants constituting the said
Board of Censors as aforesaid upon the 2nd day of May, 1916,
in regular session assembled, pretending to act by authority of
and under and by virtue of said Ordinance No. 50, New Series, made
an order forbidding the plaintiff to produce and exhibit one scene
in said film designated as "The Birth of a Nation" in said City
of Phoenix, which said order reads as follows: "IT IS THEREFORE
ORDERED that so much of the photoplay entitled "THE BIRTH OF A

22
NATION", now being produced at the Elk's Theater, as portrays
such scenes, to-wit: The attempted assault by the negro upon
the white girl, beginning with the preparation of the young girl
to start to go to the spring for a bucket of water and ending with
the scene showing her body lying in the living room of her home, be
omitted and be not exhibited; that with such omission the photoplay may be produced as exhibited at the initial performance on the
afternoon of April thirtieth, 1916; and that any violation of this
order will be prosecuted, as provided in Section 2, of the said
Ordinance." that said scene so forbidden by said order does not in
fact depict an attempted assault by a negro upon a white girl;
that it is impossible for plaintiff to cut the scene referred to
in the said order of said Board of Censors without injuring said
film and without undergoing great expense and without entirely
revising their entire musical programme and that to cut said scene
from the film would leave the story of the film without meaning
and utterly destroy the production of the same from both artistic
and commercial standpoints, that said order of said Board of Censors
was illegal and void for the following reasons:
1st.
That said order was and is without authority of law
for the reason given in Paragraph 4 of this complaint.
2nd.
That said order was unjust, unfair and arbitrary
in that said film, i.e. "The Birth of a Nation" and the forbidden
scene therein is not indecent, obscene or lewd or does it in any
way tend to excite race hatred or prejudice or to disturb or
endanger the peace, health, morals or safety of the city or the
[end of Page 3.]
[Page 4.]
inhabitants thereof.
3rd.
That said order was and is confiscatory and
deprives plaintiff of its property without due process of law
in contravention with the 14th amendment of the Constitution of
the United Sates and in contravention of the Constitution of the
State of Arizona.
4th.
That said order was and is arbitrary and unfair
and deprives plaintiff of the equal protection of the law.
5th.
That said Ordinance No. 99 New Series, has been
repealed by the City Commission of Phoenix.
V.
Plaintiff alleges that said moving picture film
i.e., "The Birth of a Nation" and the said scene forbidden by
the said Board of Censors, is a moral picture and is not lewd

23
or obscene, nor does it have any tendency to excite race hatred
or prejudice or to disturb or endanger the peace, health, morals
of the city or inhabitants thereof.
VI.
That not withstanding that said order of said
Board of Censors was illegal and void for the reasons specified
in Paragraph IV of the complaint and not withstanding that said
moving picture film is a moral picture and not lewd, obscene
or indecent and does not engender or excite race hatred or prejudice and does not endanger the peace, health, morals or safety
of the city or the inhabitants thereof, the defendants and each
of them have threatened and do threaten and unless restrained
and enjoined by this court, will stop, prevent and deter plaintiff
from exhibiting said moving picture film in its entirety in the
City of Phoenix and will subject plaintiff to a multitude of vexatious
suits and vexatious prosecutions if plaintiff produces and exhibits
said moving picture film in the City of Phoenix in its entirety as it
has a right to do, that plaintiff at great expense has engaged the
Elks Theatre for a period of two weeks for the purpose of producing
and exhibiting said moving picture film and has at great expense
brought said film to Phoenix for the purpose of exhibiting the same
[end of Page 4.]
[Page 5.]
for profit and plaintiff has further at great expense brought
to said City of Phoenix and is under engagement to pay the
salary of thirty-five employees used in producing and exhibiting
said film and that unless defendants and each of them be enjoined
from interfering with plaintiff's production and exhibition of
said film, plaintiff will suffer irreparable damage loss and
injury in a sum exceeding the sum of Ten Thousand ($10,000.00)
Dollars.
VII.
That unless a temporary restraining order of this
court immediately ensue herein restraining these defendants and
each of them from interfering with plaintiff's production and
exhibition for profit of said moving picture film, "The Birth of
a Nation", plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury and loss before
notice for application for an interlocutory injunction could be
served and hearing had thereon.
VIII.
In consideration whereof and for as much as
plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and can only have
relief in Equity, it prays:
First:
That the aforesaid Ordinance of the City of
Phoenix, hereinbefore set out be declared to be violation of
and in contravention of the rights of this plaintiff under the
City Charter of the City of Phoenix and be declared non-operative
as repealed.

24

Second:
That the said order of the said Board of Censors
forbidding plaintiff to produce and exhibit said moving picture
film issued May 2nd, 1916, be declared violation of and in contravention of the rights of the plaintiff under the City Charter of
the City of Phoenix and under the 14th amendment of the Constitution
of the United States and under the Constitution of the State of
Arizona and that the same be declared void by this court and cancelled.
Third:
That each of the defendants, the members of the
Board of Censors, the Members of the City Commission of the City
[end of Page 5.]
[Page 6.]
of Phoenix, the City Manager of the City of Phoenix, the City
Marshall of the City of Phoenix, aforesaid their and each of
their successors, assistants, deputies and employees be temporarily
and permanently enjoined from in any manner or way enforcing against
the plaintiff said Ordinance No 99, New Series, of the said City
of Phoenix, or said Order of said Board of Censors forbidding this
plaintiff the right to produce and exhibit said moving picture film,
"The Birth of a Nation" in its entirety in the said City of Phoenix
and from interfering in any manner with plaintiff producing and
exhibiting said moving picture film, "The Birth of a Nation", and from
instituting or causing to be instituted any suit, prosecution or
proceeding to enforce against this plaintiff the aforesaid ordinance
or any ordinance of the City of Phoenix because of the exhibition of
said moving picture film, "The Birth of a Nation", and such other
relief as may seem to the Court just and equitable.
[signed] G. P. Bullard
Attorney for Plaintiff.
STATE OF ARIZONA
COUNTY OF MARICOPA
A. E. Jones being duly sworn deposes
and says I am the Manager for Plaintiff and make this affidavit
in the belief that I have read the foregoing amended complaint and know
the contents thereof, that the same is true of my own knowledge
except the matters therein stated on information and belief and
as to the matters I believe it to be true.
[signed] A E Jones
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2nd Day of
May 1916.
[signed] D. B. Clemens
Notary Public
My commission expires Aug. 25, 1919.
[end of Page 6 and end of document.]

25
A 1916 Chronology of The Birth of a Nation in Arizona
February 28 Monday. Phoenix newspapers report that The Birth of
a Nation is booked to play in Phoenix in April at the Elks
Theater, the most prestigious entertainment venue in the city.
March 1 Wednesday. The Phoenix mayor and city commissioners meet
in the afternoon and hear a request from black church and civic
organizations to prohibit the showing of The Birth of a Nation
in Phoenix. The commission, acting in its capacity as the Board
of Censors, unanimously agrees to prohibit the showing of the
film.
March 4 Saturday. The Phoenix city primary election for mayor
and two commissioners is held, with some comment by a newspaper,
the Arizona Republican, that the banning of The Birth of a
Nation is politically motivated to appeal to black voters.
April 1 Saturday. Allegations of a voting and registration
scandal, centering on a black former janitor at Phoenix city
hall, Fred Gardiner, are reported in the Arizona Republican.
Later that day, a rival newspaper, the Arizona Gazette, reports
that stories of a registration scandal are unfounded. Also, the
Bisbee Daily Review reports that The Birth of a Nation will show
in Bisbee, but that the city council and mayor are considering
action to prohibit its showing. However, no further reports of
action by the Bisbee council or mayor against the film appear.
April 4 Tuesday. In the Phoenix city general election, city
commissioner Peter Corpstein, identified by the Arizona
Republican as the main city government supporter of the ban on
The Birth of a Nation, defeats incumbent George U. Young for
mayor of Phoenix.
April 13 Thursday. The Birth of a Nation starts its first run in
Arizona. It is scheduled for a four day booking at the Orpheum
Theatre in Bisbee, but only plays the afternoon and evening on
this day. A few cases of spinal meningitis prompt city and
county health officials to close all theaters in Bisbee starting
on Friday, April 14. [Theaters did not reopen in Bisbee until
Saturday, May 6.]
April 15-22 Saturday to Saturday. The Birth of a Nation plays
afternoons and evenings at the Opera House in Tucson. Originally
scheduled to start its Tucson run on April 17, the date was
moved up when the film's run in Bisbee was cut short. A

26
newspaper, the Tucson Citizen, reports on the 22nd that the film
had only attracted small houses during its run in Tucson.
April 16 Sunday. The Arizona Republican reports that Ed Redmond,
the man trying to book The Birth of a Nation for the Elks
Theater in Phoenix, had retained an attorney.
April 18-19 Tuesday-Wednesday. Phoenix newspapers report that
The Birth of a Nation is booked for a two week engagement at the
Elks Theater starting April 30.
April 22 Saturday. The Arizona Republican prints a notice from a
local Civil War veterans organization (the Arizona Encampment of
the Grand Army of the Republic), condemning The Birth of a
Nation and urging Phoenix city government to do what it can to
prohibit its showing.
April 24 Monday. A meeting is held in Phoenix that evening at
the African Methodist Episcopal church (also known as Tanner
Chapel, on the corner of 2nd and Jefferson streets) to plan how
to prevent The Birth of a Nation from being shown in Phoenix.
Speakers George U. Young (Phoenix Mayor), Rawleigh Stanford
(Maricopa County Superior Court Judge), General Archibald J.
Sampson, B. E. Marks (an attorney retained by black opponents of
The Birth of a Nation) and William P. Crump (a prominent black
businessman) are conciliatory and advocate leaving the fate of
the film to the Phoenix Board of Censors.
April 24-25 Monday-Tuesday. The Birth of a Nation is exhibited
at Miami.
April 26-28 Wednesday-Friday. The Birth of a Nation is exhibited
at Globe.
April 30 Sunday. The exhibition of The Birth of a Nation opens
in Phoenix with afternoon and evening performances at the Elks
Theater. Some members of the Phoenix city Board of Censors
attend the afternoon performance.
May 1 Monday. Afternoon and evening performances of the film are
held at the Elks. That morning, Peter Corpstein is sworn in as
new mayor of Phoenix, as well as two new city commissioners,
Frank Woods and James A. Jones. The commission convenes as the
Board of Censors in the late morning and later that afternoon,
after which it issues an order that a particular scene from The
Birth of a Nation must be removed for exhibition to continue in

27
Phoenix.
May 2 Tuesday. Afternoon and evening performances of the film
are held at the Elks. At the request of the firm Elliott &
Sherman, distributors of The Birth of a Nation, Maricopa County
Superior Court Judge Rawleigh Stanford issues a temporary
injunction to prevent the Phoenix Board of Censors from
interfering with the exhibition of the film, pending a hearing
on Thursday afternoon.
May 3 Wednesday. Afternoon and evening performances of the film
are held at the Elks.
May 4 Thursday. Afternoon and evening performances of the film
at the Elks. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Stanford
decides that his court has no jurisdiction in the matter of the
Phoenix Board of Censors' order regarding The Birth of a Nation
and removes his injunction on that board.
May 5-7 Friday-Sunday. Afternoon and evening performances of the
film are held at the Elks.
May 8 Monday. Afternoon and evening performances of the film are
held at the Elks. The manager of the Elks and the manager of the
film distribution company are arrested for violation of Phoenix
City Ordinance No. 99, section 45; they post bail and are
released.
May 9 Tuesday. The manager of the Elks and the manager of the
film distribution company plead guilty to violation of Phoenix
City Ordinance No. 99. Each pays a $50 fine and exhibition of
the film is stopped in Phoenix. Arrangements are made to move
exhibition to Mesa for the remainder of the engagement.
May 10 Wednesday. An evening performance of the film is held at
the Mesa Opera House.
May 11 Thursday. Afternoon and evening performances of the film
are held at the Mesa Opera House.
May 12 Friday. Afternoon and evening performances of the film
are held at the Majestic Theater in Mesa. Mesa High School has a
previous arrangement for the use of the Mesa Opera House on this
day, forcing exhibition of the film at the smaller venue.
May 13 Saturday. An afternoon performance of the film at the

28
Majestic Theater in Mesa concludes the run of The Birth of a
Nation in the Phoenix area.
May 15 Monday. A single evening show of the film is held in
Prescott, concluding the first run of the film in Arizona (the
film exhibited next in Goldfield, Nevada).
December 10 Sunday. Phoenix newspapers report that a three day
engagement of The Birth of a Nation is booked for the Columbia
Theater, December 17-19.
December 13 Wednesday. The Phoenix city commission considers a
letter from the Arizona Federation of Colored Women's Clubs
protesting the planned showing of The Birth of a Nation at the
Columbia Theater.
December 14 Thursday. The Phoenix city commission notifies the
manager of the Columbia Theater that an offensive scene from The
Birth of a Nation must be removed for the film to be shown in
Phoenix. The Columbia manager cancels the engagement for the
film.
December 16-17 Saturday-Sunday. Afternoon and evening
performances at the Mesa Opera House.
December 23 Saturday. Afternoon and evening performances in
Flagstaff.
Presented sometime before December 28 at the Sultana Theater in
Williams.

29
Notes
1 The Elks Theater was located at 347-349 West Washington Street
in Phoenix. It originally opened in November 1898 as the Patton
Grand Theatre. E. M. Dorris acquired it from Patton in 1899, and
the Elks acquired it in 1908.
2 Events

at the Elks Theater included: Oct. 21, 1909 and Oct. 23,
1911 concerts by John Philip Sousa and His Band; Jan. 31, 1912
concert by the German contralto, Ernestine Schumann-Heink; Jan.
1-2, 1914 presentations by E. H. Sothern and Julia Marlowe of
Romeo and Juliet, If I Were King, and the Taming of the Shrew;
May 26, 1914 concert by American operatic baritone David
Bispham; Nov. 27-28, 1914 dance performances by Ruth St. Denis
and company (including Ted Shawn, Hilda Beyer, Evan B.
Fontaine); and the Dec. 3-4, 1915 presentations of The Passing
of the Third Floor Back and Hamlet by English actor Sir Johnston
Forbes-Robertson and his London company of fifty. The stage
adaptation of Thomas Dixon’s The Clansman also played to a sold
out audience at the Elks on December 8, 1908.
3 The

actual size of the orchestra is unclear. The February 28
announcement stated 20, an April 29 newspaper ad claimed 30, but
later newspaper ads had 25.
The "Pastor of the Colored Church" mentioned in the commission
minutes cannot be identified. He could be any one of the pastors
of the three Phoenix churches with black congregations at that
time: Rev. J. A. Wright of the Second Baptist Church (located at
Fifth and Jefferson streets), Rev. Andrew J. Norris of the
Colored Methodist Episcopal Church (located at Seventh and
Jefferson streets), and Rev. Robert H. Herring, African
Methodist Episcopal Church (also known as Tanner Chapel, located
at Second and Jefferson streets).
4

The Protective League, a Phoenix civic organization of blacks,
would later vote in summer 1919 to disband and turn its work
over to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People (see Arizona Republican, August 7, 1919, page 12).
5

30
Denver's December 1915 ban on the film did not last long, and
the film was eventually shown in Denver for weeks, as well as
other cities in Colorado in early 1916.
6

7 Located

on the west side of First Avenue, between Monroe and
Van Buren streets, the Federal Building, completed in early
1913, had three stories, containing the U. S. Post Office, as
well as offices of the Surveyor General, District Attorney and
U. S. Marshall.
8 "Ring

politician" was a derogatory term of that period for a
politician who resorted to trickery and dishonest tactics.
9 Damaged

Goods was a 1914 film that dealt with syphilis.
Hypocrites was a 1915 film that included blurred images of a
naked woman who represented the character of Truth.
10 According

to the Internet Movie DataBase, the film was rereleased in 1917 as The New Governor. According to newspaper ads
and reports, the film only ever showed in Phoenix in 1915 and
1916 with the original, offensive title.
11 The

creation of a Board of Censors in June 1915 was also
prompted by pressure from white women’s clubs in Phoenix, who
advocated for an official body that included women and would
routinely review films.
Lewis W. Blinn was Cochise County's councilman in the 14th
Arizona Territorial Legislature, 1887.
12

13 Young

14 In

received 10% of the vote in that election.

Arizona, black men had been able to vote in elections since
Territorial times, and black women had been able to vote on
state and local matters since the November 1912 passage of a
suffrage amendment to the Arizona Constitution.

31
It is not clear which terms of the ordinance (No. 99, section
45) the editor thought had not been observed. One possibility is
that the ordinance established the Phoenix City Manager as a
member of that board, and the manager was not present at the
March 1 meeting. However, the ordinance stated that the action
of a majority of the board was sufficient to deem a public
entertainment objectionable. Another possibility is that the
ordinance authorized the Board of Censors to witness public
entertainments to determine if they were objectionable, and the
commission’s March 1 ban was decided without viewing the film.
However, the ordinance lacks any statement that explicitly
prohibits the board from making a determination about a
particular entertainment without actually witnessing it.
15

Both males and females had the right to vote in local and
state-level elections in Arizona since November 1912. A count of
black males and females, 21 years and older, in the 1910 Federal
Census gives a total of 256 (about 2.25% of the total population
of Phoenix in that census). A similar count in the 1920 Federal
census totals 797 (about 2.74% of the total population of
Phoenix in that census). The estimate of 700 black voters in
1916 is within the range of population growth from 1910 to 1920
found in the Federal census counts. With no 1916 data available
to assess the number of black voters in that year, it seems
reasonable to accept that there were about 700 black voters in
Phoenix in spring 1916.
16

17

Arizona Republican, March 3, 1916, page 4.

18 For

a summary of the 1915 struggle between the commission and
the city manager, see pages 69-73 in Bradford Luckingham's
Phoenix, the History of a Southwestern Metropolis (Tucson:
University of Arizona Press, 1989).
19 It

is significant, however, that a March 5 story in the Bisbee
Daily Review on the banning of the film in Phoenix concluded
with: "The matter will be taken into the courts."
20 The

dismissal of the case against Gardiner is reported in the
Arizona Republican, May 25, 1916, page 3.

32
21 The

first and second wards accounted for over 73% of the total
votes cast for mayor, and Corpstein won 52% of the vote in those
wards.
22 Prosper

Parker was responsible for offering the resolution at
the meeting. He was a native of Canada (born 1835) who
immigrated to the United States in 1858, eventually settled in
Missouri, was naturalized and served as an officer in the Union
army. The full text of the resolution:
Resolved, that the Department Encampment of Arizona G. A. R. condemns in unmeasured terms
the show advertised to be exhibited in this city, entitled "The Birth of a Nation," and respectfully
petitions the city authorities to prevent its production, and requests every well disposed person join
in condemning it.
We condemn it after having seen it. It has not a single feature to commend it. Governor Ferris of
Michigan said: "It is the most damnable thing I ever witnessed. Words cannot express the contempt I
feel for it. I would not see it again for $50. It is an insult to the colored race and to the soldiers who
fought under the Stars and Stripes. It does not symbolize peace: it symbolizes hell."
Resolved that the assistant adjutant general is hereby directed to furnish copies of the foregoing to
our city daily papers, respectfully requesting the publication of the same.
All of which was unanimously adopted.
As ordered, I furnish you the copy.
ARCHIBALD J. SAMPSON,
Assistant Adjutant General, Department of Arizona, G. A. R.
23 Stanford

was later elected as Arizona governor, serving from
1937 to 1939.
24 Sampson

was an Ohio native (born 1839) who settled in Phoenix
in 1892. He was appointed United States envoy to Ecuador in
1897. During the Civil War, he rose through the ranks in the
Union army and eventually received an officer commission (April
1864) as a First Lieutenant of Company H, United States Colored
Troops 27th Infantry Regiment.
25

Minutes of the Phoenix City Commission, May 1, 1916.

26 Bullard

1915.

was formerly Attorney General of Arizona from 1912 to

33
27 Sloan

had served as the last territorial governor of Arizona
from 1909 to 1912.
28 Arizona

Republican (May 5, 1916, page 12) reporting of
testimony by A. E. Jones at the hearing includes interesting
details. Jones valued each reel of the film at $1,200 dollars
(in making the point that cutting a reel financially harmed the
Film Corporation). Jones stated that each performance of the
film cost the Film Corporation $400 (presumably to pay
musicians, projectionists, technicians and staff, and other
expenses). Another financial point made by Jones was that
attendance at showings was down because some people assumed its
exhibition had been stopped. Jones also stated that the film
“has never created any race disturbance or race difficulty.”
29

Arizona Republican, May 5, 1916, page 12.

30 Arizona

Republican, May 9, 1916, page 4.

31 The

Majestic Theater opened in Mesa at 52-62 West Main Street
on June 26, 1913. The building had 30 feet frontage on Main
Street and extended back about 140 feet to the north. It
continued to operate into the 1930s, but was eventually torn
down. A new movie theater, the Ritz, was built on the site and
opened in 1937.
32 The

Mesa Opera House was located at 20 South Macdonald in Mesa.
A June 9, 1918 article in the Arizona Republican gives a brief
history of the venue, which at that time was being converted to
a store room with second story apartments. The property was
owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, until
early 1918, when it was purchased by C. R. Trickey.
33 Arizona

Republican, May 11, 1916, page 10: "Mesa has the record
of being the smallest sized community that has ever succeeded in
landing this film."

34
34 The

Mesa Daily Tribune (May 11, 1916, page 4) reported that
crowds were turned away from the sold out performance at the
Opera House on Wednesday evening. That newspaper also included a
nearly half page ad for the movie, stating that a 25 piece
orchestra performed the music.
35

Arizona Gazette, December 13, 1916, page 11.

36 The

film was shown at the Mesa Opera House, Saturday and
Sunday, December 16-17.
37 A

play written by Harvey O’Higgins and Harriet Ford. The road
show performance in Phoenix included a young, seventeen year old
Eva Le Gallienne in the cast, in her only touring season before
she became one of the best known Broadway stars in the 1920s.
38 It

is also likely that a single day showing of a film is less
likely to provoke public protest compared to a two week run of
The Birth of a Nation.
39 A

film starring Sessue Hayakawa that was released in December
1919. Newspaper ads for the showing of the film touted that the
board had approved the film. The ads could have been intended to
both assuage fears that the film could have objectionable
content, as well as attract an audience that wanted to see films
deemed deserving of review by censors.
40 No

individual protestors are identified in newspaper accounts.
Ella S. White, who had figured so prominently in the 1916
protests against the film, was no longer a Phoenix resident; she
and her family had relocated to Los Angeles in 1917.
41 Corpstein

narrowly defeated Woods in the April 2, 1918 general
election for mayor.
42 Primary

election results are from the certificate of election
in the Phoenix City Commission minutes of March 6, 1916.
43 General

election results are from the certificate of election
in the Phoenix City Commission minutes of April 11, 1916.