Cinematograph Apparatus, Electric Lighting, and Municipal Entertainments in the Town Hall
Report of Council discussion about installation of cinematograph in Town Hall. Bailie Gibson and Thomas Johnston arguing for it and making financial case, while other councillors and Town Clerk question legality of financial arrangements. They point out at competition from Pavilion as cause for diminished income from Town Hall leases.
MacIndoe estimating a weekly loss of 19s 2d and asking how they would get extra help to run the pictures, Fletcher: 'no need for an electrical engineer and stage manager. A Manager could be arranged at a very nominal figutre and it would cost nothing if the entertainments were not a success. £8 was allowed weekly for special attractions and contingencies. Mr Murrie's statement that Jim Clark was likely to start another picture house was the very last argument that had been given for their case because here was a man who was in the business and knew it paid in the face of the new picture house'.
"Since the Picture House came [the Town Hall revenue] had gone down considerably and they did not see how they were going to meet their expenditure. A profit of £150 from this municipal enterprise would help to reduce the rates and public opinion favoured the Council taking up this work themselves. They could keep the exhibition up to a higher moral standard than any outside company could do. After all, it was not a question of who was going to gain or lose money, it was a question of who was going to gain or lose a moral character.
|Title||Cinematograph Apparatus, Electric Lighting, and Municipal Entertainments in the Town Hall|
|Source||Kirkintilloch Gazette, Lenzie and Campsie Reporter|